On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 15:31 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
To me it looks like Fedora Server SIG is
generally not interested in identity management area development (as
opposed to being able to consume resulted features admin-wise) so we are
left with our own effort.
Well...that's sort of how it's supposed to be. Fedora is a
distribution, it consumes its actual constituent applications and
libraries and so on from upstreams. Anything that's constituted as part
of Fedora is supposed to be involved in the business of turning
upstream software projects into an operating system, not *developing*
those upstream software projects. Obviously in practice sometimes those
"upstream" projects are intimately related to the job of being an
operating system (e.g. dnf and anaconda) and the people involved in
maintaining them switch between their Upstream Hat and Downstream Hat
constantly, but the separation persists. Developing FreeIPA - or
postgres or Apache or Cockpit - is not Server SIG's job. Even
developing rolekit was not technically Server SIG's job, only
integrating it into Fedora Server, though that was definitely a case of
sgallagh switching hats a lot.
What definitely is/should have been Server SIG's job was recognizing
this impedance mismatch between the update of components on which
FreeIPA depended and the ability of upstream FreeIPA development to
accommodate those updates at a pace compatible with the Fedora release
schedule; ultimately it really ought to have been our job to see there
was a big problem there and try to manage it from the downstream
perspective somehow. I'd have to check back through archives and stuff
to see exactly what we did about that, but there are probably ways we
could have done it better.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net