----- Original Message ----- > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jaroslav Reznik" <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:25:10 PM > > Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > -----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. > > > > > > During today's FESCo meeting, there was the start of a discussion on > > > how to approve new Products into the Fedora family. As part of this, > > > it naturally strayed into discussion of what we do about Spins as they > > > currently exist. > > > > > > Several ideas were raised (which I'll go through below), but we didn't > > > feel that this was something that FESCo should answer on its own. We'd > > > prefer community input on how to handle spins going forward. > > > > > > So, in no particular order (because it's difficult to say which > > > questions are the most important): > > > > > > 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. > > > > Spins are useful especially as they makes our community inclusive, > > one thing we should be proud about (and sometimes it was harder, could > > cause issues but everything is solvable). > > > > For spins quality - it differs, it will differ but recent changes to > > process were for good, more updates are still needed. Long time ago > > we released what was build, I like how big step we did last few years. > > It's not reason it wasn't functional before to ban spins. > > > > If there's interest in spins like product, someone is willing to lead > > this effort, I think in some way, it can stay. > > > > > 2) Should Spins be eliminated entirely in favor of Fedora Remixes[1]. > > > The effect here would be that Spins are no longer an official part of > > > The Fedora Project but are instead projects unto themselves which are > > > permitted to consume (possibly large) portions of our tools, packages > > > and ecosystem. Maintenance and upkeep of these spins then becomes > > > entirely the responsibility of the downstream community that > > > constructs them and has no mandatory draw on Fedora's marketing, > > > ambassadors or quality assurance resources. > > > > It's possible but much more resource hungry. The way how spins are set > > helps these sub-projects deliver interesting piece of software. > > > > But there are two questions: > > - does every single spin makes sense as standalone spin? I really liked > > the idea of Fedora Formulas, it's exactly the way we should go. If for > > some reason formulas would not be enough for desired use case -> remix. > > > > aka products + add-ons as formulas = spin > > > > For people who missed it https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_formulas > > Well I think this idea is interesting and we have discussed something along > these > lines in the Workstation working group. I mean at the end of the day we all > want as much > software as possible packaged for Fedora/Product. The question to me lies in > the details > of how this is done. For instance the idea we hope to explore are we develop > the technical > specification for the workstation is what kind of rules should apply to these > potential > 'formulas'. There are some obvious ones like, you can't for instance in a > 'formula' to replace a package > that would break the core product for instance due to replacing a version of > a package with one that > got a different ABI. (This specific idea is quite well covered in existing > Fedora guidelines, but I wanted to > avoid derailing this discussion by choosing an example that I hope would > generate discussion in itself :) Good to hear you're thinking about it. > > > - or we could go even further and ask ourselves, do we want to call > > products Fedora? Or do we want products as remixes too? Based on > > underlying Fedora infrastructure? This could for example solve issues > > with our values - 3rd party repos etc. > > Using the Fedora brand to only define a set of 'white box' packagesets is an > option, > but in some sense it means the end of 'Fedora' as a user facing brand. Yes, it would be end of Fedora as user facing brand. And also pretty demanding to do it for different products. > > > 3) Should Spins be considered Products-in-development? In other words, > > > should we only approve Spins that are targeted or destined for > > > "promotion" to a fully-supported Fedora Product? This is a nuanced > > > question, as it means different things for different Spins, for > > > example Spins focusing on a target-audience (Security Spin, Design > > > Suite Spin) vs. Spins focusing on a technology (LXDE Spin, MATE-Compiz > > > Spin). > > > > For target audience spins, see above Formulas. And once we have this, > > I think spins as we know them right now could go then. > > > > I'd like to avoid calling LXDE/MATE other tech spins as products in > > development but we would have to product categories > > > > - Release blocking products > > - Non release blocking products with limited support > > > > And to promote other products to be release blocking, WG would have to > > be formally established, team should prove sustainability, willingness > > to work on it and have resources allocated (own resources or get agreement > > from other teams on help, doesn't matter). > > > > Keep it simple and stupid. > > > > So my two cents are - revive Formulas (or now let's call it Stacks now?), > > have two categories of products but make it fair to be promoted... > > The general issue with this secondary products is that they would lead to an > endless > debate about how they get promoted/not promoted by 'Fedora' on the Fedora web > pages, by > Fedora conference booths etc. Remixes in my opinion are better here as they > make the division > clear and should actually empower the communities in question to more > effectively drive and market > their specific product as opposed to spend time arguing over their placement > or lack of placement on important > fedoraproject.org pages and simmilar. Same reason as for products outside Fedora brand - it would be pretty demanding to do so. On the other hand I think the rules could be set pretty straight. Jaroslav > Christian > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
