On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 23. 06. 20 14:30, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:01 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 22. 06. 20 21:36, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>> I'd like to ask whether RHEL 9 has decided for default modular
>>>> their failure in Fedora, whether this decision is final and what was
>>>> reasoning behind it.
>>> That's an interesting question. I think for the purposes of this
>>> discussion, we should acknowledge that usage of default module streams
>>> in Fedora and usage in RHEL aren't equivalent. Therefore, failure of
>>> adoption in Fedora doesn't necessarily equate to failure in RHEL.
>>> With that context, I'll continue.
>> Before we continue with that context, could you please elaborate on this?
> If I must.
Not at all, feel free to not continue this conversation if it bothers you in any
way. But I think it is extremely helpful to have the things said here and I
thank you for doing it.
Bothers is perhaps too strong of a word. It's simply very time
consuming, but likely worthwhile.
>> What makes RHEL so different that the failure is not
relevant to it? Is it the
>> stable nature of RHEL content? Is it the limited scope of RHEL content? Is it
>> the less "wild" development process? Is it something different?
> Primarily, RHEL:
> - Moves much much slower
> - Has a base distribution that is extremely stable and does not
> version bump often across the "platform" layer of libraries, etc
> - Has a lifecycle that is equivalent to 20 Fedora releases (yes, twenty)
> - Has a broader downstream ecosystem of ISVs and products that require
> stability and continuity
I can see technical challenges with default modular streams in ELN, because even
thou ELN is RHEL-like, the content is Rawhide-like and hence most of the above
does not apply.
I think that discounts that all Enterprise distributions have to start
somewhere, so defining a default for a period of time to further that
bootstrap has value. If one expects ELN to be a continuous stream
that is always updatable from day to day, then changing the default
would present challenges. I actually have no idea what the long-term
implications of ELN are.
(Notice I say challenges: I don't say this is a reason why we
should not have this.)
> You are smart enough to come up with your own reasons. The fact that
> you phrased them as questions rather than statements highlights your
> perspective on the discussion more than any actual merit of what I
> just provided above.
I don't even know what to reply to this. If this is the way to handle the
conversation, I'd rather end it here. Thanks for your replies, Josh.
My point, possibly too subtly stated, is that I see highly intelligent
people intentionally saying they are only fedora packagers or only
rhel packagers, and that kind of framing seems to start a lot of
conversations off on the wrong foot. You were clearly able to think
about your own question and come up with reasons yourself. If more
people did that, it would foster a conversation where we seek
compromise instead of positioning. E.g. put yourself in the other
I was saying your reasons were already just as valid as anything I was
going to tell you.
AFAIK Stephan and Igor are working on general guidelines for default
ELN and any further discussion should probably happen after that.
That is good to hear.