Re: Sync deadlines for self contained and system wide changes
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 29. 01. 19 20:31, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 1) Move System-Wide and Self-Contained proposal deadlines to be the same date
> and allow FESCO/etc determine if the proposal needs to be moved to SW or SC then?
> 2) Move Self-Contained deadline BEFORE System-Wide so that if it is really
> System-Wide move it to the correct category?
> 3) Add a re-evaluate deadline after the first two? This allows us to get an idea
> that "oh wait this is going to really mess things up and we need to push this
> out one release?" or other items
I'm starting a new thread about this so it is not buried in the YUM3 removal thread.
I don't think 2 brings us any benefit over 1.
I understand the need of soon deadline for changes needing the mass rebuild.
However I guess changes not needing it might share a deadline, so we are able to
"upgrade" a Self Contained change proposal to System Wide without postponing
to
the next Fedora release.
Before we do any changes, what is the actual reasoning for two deadlines?
Is it the assumption that System Wide changes need more time? That is not always
correct.
I think it's more that Self-Contained Changes should have no
downstream impact, so we can give them a little more time to come in.
System-Wide Changes could potentially impact the mass rebuild, etc, so
they need to come in a little earlier. Arguably, it should be a week
or two sooner than it is now since a Change that requires a mass
rebuild that is submitted the day of the deadline doesn't have a lot
of time to get approved and implemented.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:51 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This split between SW and SC was artificial since the beginning and I'd be happy if
we dropped it.
It's a meaningful distinction because it changes the level of rigor
that we require. Adding a leaf package and changing the compiler
version should not be treated the same. That was one of the problems
with the old Features process.
I have no objections to unifying the proposal deadlines to the current
System-Wide proposal deadline. It means there's a shorter window for
Self-Contained Change proposals to be submitted, but I don't know if
that's particularly meaningful, especially since some proposals being
labeled as Self-Contained should really be System-Wide. That benefit
may outweigh the downside of the shorter window.
It's clear, though, that the guidance for how to distinguish the
Change types needs improving. I will work on that as I start migrating
content out of the wiki and into docs.fp.o.
--
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis