Copr and Playground plugin part of dnf-plugins-core?

[Miroslav Suchý]

In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090516
Jiri asked for removing Copr (and Playground) DNF plugin out of dnf-plugins-core.

Since this is not technical but merely political question I would like to ask wider
audience:
Put your voice here please:
    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5358d77de4b06a67c5b08e05
If there will be significant votes for one option, I would do what most of you wish.
Otherwise I will forward it to Fesco for decision.
-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys

[Tim Lauridsen]

If you want people to vote for something, It would be a good idea to say
why and what the pro/cons is for
having copr as a separate package.

Tim


On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090516
>  Jiri asked for removing Copr (and Playground) DNF plugin out of
>  dnf-plugins-core.
>
>  Since this is not technical but merely political question I would like to
>  ask wider audience:
>  Put your voice here please:
>     http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5358d77de4b06a67c5b08e05
>  If there will be significant votes for one option, I would do what most of
>  you wish.
>  Otherwise I will forward it to Fesco for decision.
>  --
>  Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
>  Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:29:15 +0200
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090516
>  Jiri asked for removing Copr (and Playground) DNF plugin out of
>  dnf-plugins-core.
>  
>  Since this is not technical but merely political question I would
>  like to ask wider audience: Put your voice here please:
>      http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5358d77de4b06a67c5b08e05
>  If there will be significant votes for one option, I would do what
>  most of you wish. Otherwise I will forward it to Fesco for decision. 
I'm not sure a open vote is the way to go here. How about we try and
figure this out on technical grounds?

Personally I think it's fine to be in dnf-plugins-core, but the
maintainers of dnf don't think so I guess, but that could just be that
the audience isn't clear for the playground repo yet. 

It seems like something the env-and-stacks group could look into? 
ie, decide what the audience is for the playground repo. 

Is this intended only for advanced users/developers? Then, I suppose it
could be a seperate package that they would have to know to install. 

If it's intended for general users if they know to look/enable it, then
it needs to be at least installed by default. 

kevin

[Miloslav Trmač]

2014-04-24 22:33 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt;:

>  I'm not sure a open vote is the way to go here. How about we try
> and
>  figure this out on technical grounds?
>
>  Personally I think it's fine to be in dnf-plugins-core, but the
>  maintainers of dnf don't think so I guess, but that could just be that
>  the audience isn't clear for the playground repo yet.
>
>  It seems like something the env-and-stacks group could look into?
>  ie, decide what the audience is for the playground repo.
>  
The target audience isn't the main thing: if an upstream produces a release
that is useful in different ways to different target audiences, building
subpackages is fairly trivial.

This should be decided by the wanted, required or unwanted cooperation:
does the plugin and the rest of the package need to be always released and
tested in sync?  Would it benefit from doing it?  Or is it usually just an
unwanted hassle because one of the two would like a release and the rest is
currently in an unstable state, or simply because it requires two people to
coordinate when they otherwise wouldnt' have to?
     Mirek

[Tim Lauridsen]

I have started a new dnf-utils project for commuty plugins/addons there is
not maintain by the core dnf team

https://github.com/timlau/dnf-utils

copr / playground is welcome here is the core dnf developers, think its
dont fit into dnf-plugins.core

It is not submitted as a fedora package yet, but that will happen soon

Tim


On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090516
>  Jiri asked for removing Copr (and Playground) DNF plugin out of
>  dnf-plugins-core.
>
>  Since this is not technical but merely political question I would like to
>  ask wider audience:
>  Put your voice here please:
>     http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5358d77de4b06a67c5b08e05
>  If there will be significant votes for one option, I would do what most of
>  you wish.
>  Otherwise I will forward it to Fesco for decision.
>  --
>  Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
>  Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

On Fri 25 Apr 2014 06:47:10 AM CEST Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>  I have started a new dnf-utils project for commuty plugins/addons
> there is
>  not maintain by the core dnf team
>
>  https://github.com/timlau/dnf-utils
>
>  copr / playground is welcome here is the core dnf developers, think its
>  dont fit into dnf-plugins.core
>
>  It is not submitted as a fedora package yet, but that will happen soon
>
>  Tim 
Pretty please no. There's currently yum-utils package that contains
various utilities (such as repoquery and more). I assume eventually dnf
will get official dnf-utils containing ported versions of these tools.
Unless you aim to provide dnf-compatible tools from yum-utils please
rename the project.

(not a DNF dev, but it seems quite obvious this is a bad idea long-term)

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com&gt;
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com

[Jiri Eischmann]

Miroslav Suchý píše v Čt 24. 04. 2014 v 11:29 +0200:
>  In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090516
>  Jiri asked for removing Copr (and Playground) DNF plugin out of dnf-plugins-core.
>  
>  Since this is not technical but merely political question I would like to ask wider
> audience:
>  Put your voice here please:
>      http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5358d77de4b06a67c5b08e05
>  If there will be significant votes for one option, I would do what most of you wish.
>  Otherwise I will forward it to Fesco for decision.
>  -- 
>  Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
>  Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys 
In the ticket, one of the DNF maintainers said that the target audience
of the copr plugin are developers using copr. That's IMHO completely
wrong. Ubuntu has had the private repo infrastructure for years and it's
used by a wide user base, definitely not only by developers or not even
only by experience users. For example the GNOME 3.12 copr repo is used
by thousands of users nowadays. Moreover the plugin is IMHO targeted
rather at normal users to make adding a new copr repo easier for them.
Developers have no problem with the traditional way.

If the maintainers don't want to maintain it in dnf-plugins-core, I
don't think we can do much about it. The question is if the plugin
(whether it's part of dnf-plugins-core or in a separate package) should
be preinstalled. And that's something working groups should decide. I'm
100% for having it preinstalled at least in Workstation.

Jiri

[Miroslav Suchý]

On 04/24/2014 11:29 AM, Miroslav Such� wrote:
>  Put your voice here please:
>     http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5358d77de4b06a67c5b08e05
>  If there will be significant votes for one option, I would do what most of you wish.
>  Otherwise I will forward it to Fesco for decision. 
The votes are equal (48% vs. 52%) so I forwarded it to Env&Stack WG, which is probably
more appropriate than FeSCo.

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys

[Tadej Janež]

On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 09:47 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: 
>  
>  The votes are equal (48% vs. 52%) so I forwarded it to Env&Stack WG, which is
> probably more appropriate than FeSCo. 
We discussed the issue on today's Env and Stacks WG meeting [1] and
agreed on the following:
"The Env and Stacks WG's suggestion to the dnf-plugins-core maintainers
is to create a separate dnf-plugin-copr package with the
dnf-plugin-playground subpackage. In addition, we suggest to defer
moving copr.py out of the dnf-plugin-core upstream git repository until
DNF's API stabilizes (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)"

Regards,
Tadej

[1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-04-29/env-and-stacks...