F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

Tadej Jane┼ż tadej.janez at tadej.hicsalta.si
Tue Apr 15 11:56:41 UTC 2014


Hi,

sorry for being a bit late to the discussion.

On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: 
> 
> Adding repos definitely should not be taken lightly.  Frankly, if 2 is 
> really something worth doing, then perhaps also the (overly?) stringent 
> policies need rethinking.

The initial idea for the Playground repository came up as a frequently
encountered need for something between the current Fedora's main
repository and the COPRs. The former is comprised of very high-quality
peer-review packages adhering to the Packaging Guidelines and the latter
are just user-contributed RPMs which have almost no restrictions
(besides being buildable by Copr and complying with the Fedora Licensing
guidelines), so they could be of very high quality, very low quality or
anything in between.

I think this Change brings some cool new opportunities, where Fedora can
research some new concepts and innovate:
1) This will be the first more generally-targeted repository that will
came out entirely from Copr so we'll be able to see how Copr handles
that.
2) Packages destined to the Playground repository will go through
automatic testing/gating to ensure that they are up to some basic level
of quality. As the tests will be automatic, they could also be repeated
on every package update to provide some sort of continuous integration
at the package level. If this proves to be successful, we could look at
porting this to the main repository.
3) After the Playground sets off and we learn the process of spinning
another repository, we could look at creating Playground++, a more
stable Ring 2 repository around the main repository.
4) This could also spur some new thoughts on the current Packaging
Guidelines and review process (e.g. Which parts are too strict? Which
parts take the longest?), and as a consequence, help in improving it.

Tadej



More information about the devel mailing list