On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:00 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:55:32AM -0500, Ben Rosser wrote: > > Sorry for the delay in responding here; I admit I wasn't thinking too > > much about Fedora over vacation... > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback! I think it definitely makes sense to > > broaden the proposal to include more than just cleaning up after the > > pagure migration-- though I still think that's a good place to start, > > since it's something that happened relatively recently. > > Welcome back, and thanks for reminding me to reply to this. First of all, I > really appreciate your proposal. I agree with the others that a larger scope > is appropriate for an objective (while at the same time, I'd like there to > be definite measurable expected results, too). > > I'd like to see this include packager experience for our new packaging > technologies -- modularity, container images, flatpaks. Having tried to > modularize a traditional Fedora desktop application recently, I know for > sure that the packager experience is sub-optimal. The current Modularity > objective itself is at the end of its timeframe and it's possible that > instead of renewing that, those further improvments should be part of this > bigger thing. Sure, I think it makes sense for improvements to container/flatpak/module packaging to fall under the scope of this objective as well! I admit that Modularity is part of my motivation for filing this objective-- I'd like to make sure we keep the packager experience in mind as the modularity rollout continues. My worry with modularity (which I've expressed before on the devel list) has been that the added overhead of creating and maintaining a module will end up detracting from the other benefits of being able to modularize stuff... so it would be nice to help make sure that doesn't happen! > Additionally, some people have been working on a "source git" idea > (https://github.com/user-cont/source-git). Do you think that might be in > scope? There's a talk coming up on this at DevConf.cz: > https://devconfcz2019.sched.com/event/Jch1/auto-maintain-your-package This is an interesting idea! My initial thought was that the majority of packages probably don't *need* something like this, as they don't differ much, if at all, from upstream. But I think even for those packages, being able to browse a package's sources through a git repository via Pagure rather than having to fetch and unpack the tarballs would be a major improvement. So yes, I think trying out source-git would be something that could fall under the scope of this objective. Cheers, Ben Rosser _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
