Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Colin Walters]

'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> 
> I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody 
> with a stake took part in the ring definitions.  Creating additional 
> rings that address communities where self-hosting is a foreign concept 
> may be useful and desirable.  Making Fedora a first class OS for 
> languages where rpm packaging doesn't make sense is great!

One thing I find strange is that while by some measurements
the rings effort would be a major change, by others it seems to
be a minor tweak of what exists today.

I haven't seen for example any evaluation or discussion of
the apparent assumption that Ring 0 will be binary RPM packages,
maintained how they always have been. 

I haven't seen much discussion of "should ring 0 be RPMs".

To give a random contrast, look at OpenEmbedded:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Main_Page

As far as being a flexible base layer that is *explicitly* not
itself a Product, they do this *really* well.

One thing I like beyond the technology is how they have one
git repository for the core, then explicit "layers" which are also
git repositories.  These aggregate maintenance of *multiple*
components and create a very *collaborative* model.  This is not
generally true in the "big bag of packages" model since the
core/extras merge.

One small thing we could do to try to emulate this for ring0
would be to put all of the spec files for Ring 0 into one git
repository for example.  And have actual peer review
for patches, just like one sees on:
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-September/thread.html