Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
inode0 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 29 22:49:22 UTC 2014
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Jon <jdisnard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make sure
>> that this gets read by the appropriate groups.
>> 1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist? There are many problems
>> that have been noted in the Spins process, most notably that it is
>> very difficult to get a Spin approved and then has no ongoing
>> maintenance requiring it to remain functional. We've had Spins at
>> times go through entire Fedora release cycles without ever being
> Putting on my rel-eng hat I can say that any spin that fails to
> compose will be dropped.
> I believe we also encourage or even require the spin maintainers to
> test their spin as functional.
> (To work out if the spin succeeds to compose but fails to actually work)
> The idea is to encourage active spin process, inactive spins will auto
> retire by policy if they fail.
> Another aspect I worry about is the mirroring stuff.
> With the coming WGs I fear the rsync mirroring will grow very large,
> and spins are an attractive piece of fat to cut.
You probably didn't mean for that to sound so negative but a piece of
fat to cut is how rel-eng thinks of spins?
I recall being assured at the beginning that some interested company
was willing to provide the necessary support for us to give this a
> Reducing size is something we worry about on the infra, rel-eng side of things.
That is pragmatic but be a dreamer while dreaming is in style. Give
worrying about how to increase the capacity of infra a try instead.
More information about the devel