On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Jon <jdisnard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make sure >> that this gets read by the appropriate groups. > > [snip] > > >> >> 1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist? There are many problems >> that have been noted in the Spins process, most notably that it is >> very difficult to get a Spin approved and then has no ongoing >> maintenance requiring it to remain functional. We've had Spins at >> times go through entire Fedora release cycles without ever being >> functional. >> > > Putting on my rel-eng hat I can say that any spin that fails to > compose will be dropped. > > I believe we also encourage or even require the spin maintainers to > test their spin as functional. > (To work out if the spin succeeds to compose but fails to actually work) > > The idea is to encourage active spin process, inactive spins will auto > retire by policy if they fail. > > Another aspect I worry about is the mirroring stuff. > With the coming WGs I fear the rsync mirroring will grow very large, > and spins are an attractive piece of fat to cut. You probably didn't mean for that to sound so negative but a piece of fat to cut is how rel-eng thinks of spins? I recall being assured at the beginning that some interested company was willing to provide the necessary support for us to give this a fair try. > Reducing size is something we worry about on the infra, rel-eng side of things. That is pragmatic but be a dreamer while dreaming is in style. Give worrying about how to increase the capacity of infra a try instead. John -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
