On 07/26/2013 05:23 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup
company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually
proprietary) desktop OS, plus a non-Fedora distribution on their code.
We're being left behind and left out. It doesn't matter how
theoretically great we are if we end up with no users.
I don't see how your proposal solves any of those issues. You are
actually splitting Fedora into multiple
distributions which makes it even worse (more fragmentation, not
really something you can target etc etc).
Right now, we have a unified system which we pretty much guarantee cannot
be
targeted at all. It's moving too fast at every level.
Honestly this is the only thing that holds together Fedora at all. The 6
month release cycle and the fact that the entire distro needs to be in
shape then is the only thing that keeps Fedora from falling completely
into pieces.
It would certainly be a better idea to develop Fedora more like a single
OS rather than just a set of motley components with different release
cycles and insular "rings". For example, isolating GNOME development
from the core OS is certainly the signal in the wrong direction.
I am fine with splitting out the actual enduser apps out, but that's
nothing that can happen before we actually have a sane concept of
apps. But for the rest we should work on creating one strong unified
platform rather than a conglomerate of puzzle pieces that won't fit
together. You just weaken the name of Fedora that way, we won't stand
for anything anymore but a set of awkwardly non-integrated unsynced
components.
Sorry, but I am not buying this proposal, it appears to go 180° in the
wrong diretcion...
Lennart
On the other hand some projects might benefit from stable Ring0, 1, which
wouldn't change unexpectedly.
No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not
what currently happens either).
Beg to differ. There are lots of asynchronous dep changes (typically
version upgrades) in the current monolithic ring of Fedora that can wreak
havoc in dependent projects. At least in the Java space.
Actually its the opposite you want to consider the "whole picture"
when doing changes and not think
of independent pieces stuck together.
The "whole picture" is *really* big and often internally has competing
interests.
I can envision oversight and policy implementation in the Ring/SIG model
however.
That's why the "lets build some
core platform and put stuff on top
of it" is flawed.
I'm sorry but I can't agree that software layering is somehow inherently
"flawed".
--
Peter MacKinnon
MRG Grid/Big Data
Red Hat Inc.
Raleigh, NC
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
