Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Wed Jan 29 22:11:50 UTC 2014
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:01 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:03 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:57 PM, H. Guémar <hguemar at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>> I think we should keep spins as long as we don't have a formal process to
>>>> accept new products.
>>>> Something like => proposal => crop (aka product-to-be) => validation =>
>>>> When we'll have that, drop the whole spin thing, any spin that isn't fit to
>>>> be a product should be reclassified as remix.
>>> Why do we expect spins to be any more official products than they are now?
>>> I can't really imagine this ever working. Do you imagine a day where
>>> Fedora has 20, 30, 50 official products? I don't.
>>> I'd rather not confuse what is made from Fedora bits with what is
>>> based on Fedora bits but includes other bits. The remix branding does
>>> not seem appropriate for spins that are made purely from Fedora bits.
>> That's fair. From a resource and quality perspective though, I'd
>> rather not burden rel-eng and QA with having to maintain, create, and
>> test spins. They can be done entirely outside of Fedora. They can be
>> created and hosted on their own sites, etc.
>> F20 improved spins overall, but that was because of a concerted effort
>> with our existing resources. If Fedora.next is going to succeed,
>> those resources are already going to be overwhelmed with the 3
>> products. Spreading them thinner for little benefit in most cases
>> seems irresponsible.
> So I am being pulled in both directions on this. One of the goals of
> agility is to facilitate more things being made from Fedora (at least
> that was a discussed goal at various times). I agree with that and
> pushing aside the best things we have built from Fedora now
> (understanding they have been problematic in various ways in the past)
> seems to work against that goal.
There is a difference between "things being made from Fedora" and
"Fedora making things for people". I'm concerned that Spins have
transformed into the latter. There is nothing preventing someone from
taking Fedora and making a spin and hosting it themselves.
> I don't accept the blanket assertion that the spins have little
> benefit. Do we actually have any idea how many people install Fedora
> from spins?
We had download statistics at one point that showed most of the spins
were not downloaded much. Maybe the Infra group still collects them.
> Irresponsible is bit loaded. I don't know that rel-eng will be
> overburdened by running the script that builds them. I also don't know
> that there aren't other creative arrangements that could be made to
> facilitate the creation and distribution of spins largely or entirely
> under the control of those creating them without pushing them entirely
> outside of Fedora infrastructure.
Growing rel-eng could help with the resource issues (similar with QA).
If the people doing spins want to step up and do that, then some of
my concerns are alleviated. At least in terms of people resources.
> I guess I'd like those active in the spin community to make
> suggestions here. I imagine spins and other new creations built on
> Fedora to be things the project wants to promote, not push away. The
> reality may be that we can't do what we do now in support of spins,
> but I hope we can continue to do something that helps and encourages
> those making them.
Promote is an interesting word there too. I think we want to
encourage people to create things with and on Fedora. I'm not sure
_promoting_ those things simply because someone made this is the right
idea with Fedora.next. This isn't specific to Spins though. It's
part of a much larger branding conversation that we need to have.
More information about the devel