[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 18:32 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:13:23 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On 02/17/2015 05:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:39:48PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > Why not to create a new repository with reduced policy as
> > > > > Stephen proposed with the one-way dependency rule (between 
> > > > > current Fedora and the new easy-for-beginners repository)?
> > > > Because this would establish a 2-class society, with double
> > > > standards standards and so on.
> > > 
> > > If the distinction were drawn based on _who_ rather than _what 
> > > and why_, it would. (And that was fundamentally the problem with 
> > > the old Core vs. Extras.) But no one is proposing a _society_-
> > > based distinction — instead, a _technical_ one.
> > 
> > I know and understand this, but I expect the outcome to be the 
> > same:
> > 
> > Ring 0 == Red Hat
> > Ring 1 == The Red Hat business/RHEL-irrelevant parts
> > 
> > In other words, on the techicall level I do not see any difference 
> > to CentOS+RHEL and to Core+Extras
> > 
> > On the political and social level, .... it raises questions going 
> > far beyond these consideration
> 
> I wonder why it has become silent in this thread already?
> Is there another place where those "ideas" get discussed?


Speaking only for myself, I'm still digesting the responses. There are 
some very valid points made and I'm trying to figure out the best way 
to incorporate some of the ideas.

Some valid holes were poked into it (not least because the proposal 
really is about two different things - ring policy and bundling as a 
special case - and should probably be divided up and considered 
independently.

Also, I got pulled into some high-priority stuff at $DAYJOB, so my 
focus has wavered a bit :)

This is the best (and really, only) place that this topic should be 
discussed. I'm vehemently opposed to closed-door meetings for anything 
involving Fedora policies. Which is why I "kicked the hornets' nest" 
publicly.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150227/947baffe/attachment.sig>