On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:51 PM clime <clime(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:05 AM Igor Raits
> <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 08:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo
and the wider
> > > community understand where Red Hat is headed with modularity on the
> > > Enterprise side.
> > Sadly no. It helps to understand your plans, however it does not help
> > to understand the reasons behind, whether you can't change UX in the
> > RHEL 9, or you think that technology is good enough for your use-cases
> > or any other reasons.
> The base requirement is that the UX remain largely the same. As I
> said, from a RHEL perspective, we need RHEL 8 and RHEL 9 to have
> commonality so that our customers are not forced to learn something
> entirely different to adopt RHEL 9. Improvements in the underlying
> functionality are of course welcome and planned, but we are not going
> to do something like replace modules with a different artifact type,
you can change the artifact type while keeping interface the same and
it would be a _HUGE_ win because it would make modularity finally
understandable for mere humans and better maintainable.
Namely, modules should become rpms and therefore obey standard rpm rules.
I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean, but it sounds like
you have some interesting ideas.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you and the community can build
from them, and how they could be brought into RHEL 10+! That kind of
collaboration is what makes Fedora great.