RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

[drago01]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mattdm at fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup
>>>>> company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually
>>>>> proprietary) desktop OS, plus a non-Fedora distribution on their code.
>>>>> We're being left behind and left out. It doesn't matter how
>>>>> theoretically great we are if we end up with no users.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how your proposal solves any of those issues. You are
>>>> actually splitting Fedora into multiple
>>>> distributions which makes it even worse (more fragmentation, not
>>>> really something you can target etc etc).
>>>
>>>
>>> Right now, we have a unified system which we pretty much guarantee cannot
>>> be
>>> targeted at all. It's moving too fast at every level.
>>
>>
>> Honestly this is the only thing that holds together Fedora at all. The 6
>> month release cycle and the fact that the entire distro needs to be in
>> shape then is the only thing that keeps Fedora from falling completely
>> into pieces.
>>
>> It would certainly be a better idea to develop Fedora more like a single
>> OS rather than just a set of motley components with different release
>> cycles and insular "rings". For example, isolating GNOME development
>> from the core OS is certainly the signal in the wrong direction.
>>
>>
>> I am fine with splitting out the actual enduser apps out, but that's
>> nothing that can happen before we actually have a sane concept of
>> apps. But for the rest we should work on creating one strong unified
>> platform rather than a conglomerate of puzzle pieces that won't fit
>> together. You just weaken the name of Fedora that way, we won't stand
>> for anything anymore but a set of awkwardly non-integrated unsynced
>> components.
>>
>> Sorry, but I am not buying this proposal, it appears to go 180° in the
>> wrong diretcion...
>>
>> Lennart
>>
> On the other hand some projects might benefit from stable Ring0, 1, which
> wouldn't change unexpectedly.

No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not
what currently happens either).
Actually its the opposite you want to consider the "whole picture"
when doing changes and not think
of independent pieces stuck together. That's why the "lets build some
core platform and put stuff on top
of it" is flawed.