On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said:
>>> > We are not, though. Modular Fedora, Atomic Fedora, and regular Fedora
>>> > are all distinctly different platforms with different delivery
>>> > mechanisms and core technologies. Unless you plan to take an axe to
>>> > Modular and Atomic Fedora, we're providing multiple platforms.
>>>
>>> Those are not platforms. Those are ways we compose Fedora, or
>>> artifacts of our release. The platform being defined is the set of
>>> services and APIs we provide to other things to consume. That is
>>> distinctly different than the artifacts they may choose to use.
>>>
>>> E.g.:
>>>
>>> - A time synchronization service and API is defined in the platform
>>> - An implementation of that might be ntpd. Or chrony. Or some
>>> systemd thing. As long as the API and service remains consistent, the
>>> platform is consistent.
>>> - Modularity is a mechanism to define these services an APIs at a
>>> higher level than per package. It lets us set the platform at "we
>>> provide a webserver", not "we provide apache and nginx and lighttpd.
>>> take your pick". You can still choose specific webservers, but the
>>> module definition for each will hopefully fulfill the platform API.
>>> That's one of the goals.
>>
>> I think that might be the issue here - it's likely to be seen by most as
>> a change in how we describe the platform that is delivered. For better or worse,
>> even in the Atomic & Workstation & Spin & so on days, the Fedora 'platform'
>> is likely seen as "a collection of packages, including three web servers,
>> five desktops, and as many as twenty IRC clients".
>
> Yes, it's a change. Yes, "platform" is a very overloaded word in the
> industry in general. There's no better word though.
>
>> I know the rings -> modularity -> ??? discussions are about changing this
>> idea/perception, but as we've still only ever produced the same set of
>> artifacts ('a big repo turned into images and isos and variant repos'),
>> I don't know that the public perception has changed. We need to get everyone
>> on the same page as to whether it's a bikeshed or woodshed before we can
>> talk about what color it is.
>
> Modularity has been a Council Initiative for a long time now, with
> literal modules being created today and a Fedora Server being composed
> from them (Boltron). The rings/core discussions came before that and
> are a direct ancestor. This is becoming very real, very quickly. If
> it takes changing the Fedora mission statement for people to start
> paying attention to the direction we've been headed, that's kind of
> unfortunate but also I'll take it. Any crack in the door to get that
> messaging and discussion started.
An aside: where are the current modules? Google doesn't seem to be
helping me find them (although there's lots of interesting stuff on
Pagure)
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
