Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

Josh Boyer jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Wed Jan 29 23:58:22 UTC 2014

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:48 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29 January 2014 15:49, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Jon <jdisnard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > 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
>>> fair try.
>> How long is a fair try? It would help to define that before people go on a
>> rant about doing it for a couple of years now.
> I meant giving our new adventure a fair try, not giving spins a fair
> try. I also really did not mean to go on a rant.
> I think we have a group that sees little benefit to spins and another
> that sees a lot of benefit to spins. The former wants to get rid of
> them, the latter wants to keep them. We won't ever quantify the amount
> of benefit they bring so we are probably at a stalemate on the benefit
> question.

I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.  I think
they have value to people.  I think they fill a niche, however large
or small it might be.  I also think they can be done by the people
wishing to provide them without relying on Fedora resources for
hosting and creation (outside of leveraging existing packages and

I don't consider that "getting rid of them" at all.  On the contrary,
I think it lets people have more control over their spins, allows them
to refresh them as they see fit throughout the release, and allows
them to market and promote them beyond a token mention on a Fedora

Is it asking spin owners to shoulder more of the burden than today?
Yes.  Is it unreasonable to ask that of them?  In my opinion, no.
Does it provide them with more freedom while still gaining the
majority of the benefit of leveraging Fedora?  In my opinion, yes.


More information about the devel mailing list