We can definitely talk about whether moving to a slower cadence for
certain parts of the base platform. But people don't judge Fedora on
how beautifully we maintain glibc and gcc - they mostly judge it by
installing it on a laptop and seeing how well it works. And it doesn't
really matter how reliably we can create minimal container images if
the workstation image doesn't compose or doesn't log in.
We need clear naming for the workstation releases we do. If we want to
call them F30, F30.1, F31, F31.1 we can, but that doesn't inherently
reduce load on releng or remove the need for infrastructure freezes
... my assumption was that the idea of delaying F31 is to actually
*not* do an operating system release for a year, and that's something
that I don't think we should do on an ongoing basis.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:19 PM Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/18 10:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:21 AM Owen Taylor <otaylor(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer
> >>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor <otaylor(a)redhat.com>
> >>>> But for the next thousand or so Fedora developers, the release
> >>>> is actually not a big deal - not something that takes much of their
> >>>> time - and it gives them a regular place to land feature work. And
> >>>> Fedora users appreciate a timely updated operating system (without
> >>>> having random rebases trickle in.)
> >>> It's not a big deal because they don't participate in making
> >>> release nor do they really know about all the duct tape and bailing
> >>> wire holding all the machinery in place. Just like most of them
> >>> appreciate the heroics involved from Fedora QA and rel-eng and the
> >>> dozen or so people that regularly go well beyond the extra mile to get
> >>> it out the door. This isn't done out of malice on their part.
> >>> mostly that they just don't see it.
> >> If we distribute this work out across the 1000 developers, we'll make
> >> life better for heroes, and it's *still* not going to be a big deal
> >> for the 1000 developers.
> > I would say it will be a learning curve and there will be complaints
> > because it's change and people seem to only want change if it's the
> > change they want or otherwise doesn't impact them. That's going to be
> > a big deal to some :) Generally though, yes. We need to distribute
> > the burden to the package sets and whomever maintains them.
> >>>> In other words, the "technical debt" we are trying to
solve here is
> >>>> not project wide and doesn't justify slowing down the whole
> >>>> permanently.
> >>> I completely disagree. Our release process and tooling is built on
> >>> heroism and tech debt. At some point, that is going to cause
> >>> significant burnout and then people will just wonder what happened
> >>> when those people stop doing releases. I think it's better to
> >>> awareness at the project level, and build something that is
> >>> sustainable rather than predicated on "small group of people
> >>> themselves for the greater good". That starts with individual
> >>> CI gating, and goes all the way through integration testing between
> >>> packages in a gated manner, into how we actually *create* all of that
> >>> plus the things we deem worth of releasing.
> >> I think you are misunderstanding me somehow. I'm 100% on-board with
> >> improving the processes, catching compose problems in an automated and
> >> early fashion, making developers fix their own problems, and generally
> >> making releases a less heroic process. And if that requires a
> >> temporary cadence chance to get the retooling done, then it's worth
> >> it.
> > Ah, good!
> >> But Brendan's proposal to permanently slow down the cadence seems to
> >> make the assumption that the current release cycle is a heroic effort
> >> for the entire project - that we're moving too fast to stay on our
> >> feet. And I don't think that's the case.
> > That would be a concern to me as well, assuming we stuck with a
> > *single* cadence and a *single* platform. With the lifecycle
> > Objective, aren't we targeting multiple cadences and lifecycles? I
> > mean, we have this today with Fedora Atomic/CoreOS vs. "regular"
> > Fedora. Maybe Brendan was thinking singular, but I would very much
> > like the ability in our tooling a process to have both the faster
> > moving cadence of today AND a slower moving one. That's another
> > reason I view a temporary halt as worthwhile. If done correctly, it
> > enables Fedora to fill more usecases and lifecycles than we could ever
> > accomplish with a single release.
> Josh has it: I am indeed thinking about how this works with the
> lifecycle objective. When we think about things as all or nothing we
> rapidly get into a zero sum game: Let's make this part of Fedora worse
> to make this other part better. We don't have to do that, we can just
> make Fedora better. That's what having multiple cadences and
> lifecycles is all about. So it is important to talk about how the
> rules would change if F30 takes a year, because if the rules don't
> change it might diminish one of the great things about Fedora.
> Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: