Playground DNF plugin

Tadej Janež tadej.janez at
Fri Apr 18 10:28:55 UTC 2014

On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 04:58 -0400, Radek Vokál wrote: 
> +100 .. please don't put up more walls than necessary. The intention has been as Mirek stated, the reason why Fedora is not getting any additional developers and maintainers might be that we put the bar very high to get in. That's the reason why we've started working on COPR and that's a reason why we're discussing Playground and it should be super-simple to get packages/new features in for testing with the risk that you might break stuff. Better to do it in Playground than in Fedora-updates right? 

I think we are aiming for the same goal: make Fedora an attractive
platform for both developers/maintainers and the users.

I agree that COPRs cover a very important area of the above goal, I also
think the current main repository covers a very important area of the
above goal. And there is also some middle ground, which the Playground
repository idea tries to cover.

I agree that Playground should be rougher than Fedora-updates and that
it should have a low barrier to entry. But these goals could be reached
as well, despite adding some additional automatic sanity checking. I
think it is worthwhile to try to improve the quality of packages by
developing tooling that does the automatic sanity checks. Then this
would be a great added value of the Playground repository.


More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list