Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> writes:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:57 AM Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com>
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 09:56 +0200, Daniel Mach wrote:
>> On 10/7/19 8:55 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> I have to ask, given containers are so popular and can deal with
>>> any dependency without conflicting with system installed binaries,
>>> should we really continue with this very complicated modular design
>> There are only few people who fully understand how modularity works
>> today (contyk who designed modulemd, jmracek and me who implemented
>> the DNF part and few others). I agree that the modular design should
>> be simplified. If we don't lower the bar, the complexity might
>> prevent from wider adoption.
> Yes, at the moment it is a too complex system.
Do you gain something out of that complexity that's worth it? Or is
that an open question? And is it a design requirement?
>> As a former release engineer, I'm personally unhappy about lack of
>> upgrade paths between module contexts and I believe that fixing this
>> part of modularity design could lead to desired simplification.
>> Unfortunately based on discussion I had with contyk yesterday, I
>> don't believe it's achievable without making *huge* changes in the
>> modularity design and the build infrastructure/process.
> Well, the way I see it, if it is not usable we shouldn't inflict it
> on users unless there is a clear and overwhelming technical advantage
> in doing it. So far it eludes me what advantage modularity gives that
> is so important.
As a contrarian, I'd be suspicious if there's complete agreement on
any new thing. Do you disagree with the stated advantages of
modularity? Or do you not understand the advantages of modularity? Do
you think modularity is a solution in search of a problem? i.e. you
don't even agree or understand the stated problem modularity is
intended to solve, even before the questions of whether modularity
adequately addresses the problem(s)?
I believe the point most of us are struggling with is: there's no
definition of what advantages of modularity are. There may or may not
be some idea of what the advantages could be, which is a different
thing. This makes it really hard to argue whether it is or isn't
succeeding when there isn't a criteria for success.
Lack of such information places it firmly in the class of "solution in
search of a problem".