On 21.03.2014 13:24, Christian Schaller wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Miller" <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:59:01 PM
Subject: Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth
product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new
product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be
... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and
don't kill the idea at the start.
Like I said, I'm skeptical, but listening. :)
While opinions differ on if we should 'ever' have more than 3 products, personally am very skeptical
to the idea of product proliferation, I think that as a minimum common sense measure we should not even consider
any further products before we have the current 3 products released and our infrastructure updated to handle
them.
I think this way of thinking about products is fundamentally wrong
headed as that means that products are not independent from each other.
As I perceive it one of the biggest problems for Fedora as a development
platform for new technologies is that everything is tied to very
rigorous guidelines and controls that tend to be fairly conservative.
This is great when you care about overall stability and coherence of the
platform but terrible if you want to enable people to use Fedora as a
platform to spearhead new technologies.
One example is the policy that patches for packages should first be
submitted and accepted upstream before they make it into Fedora. This
works great because that way you can ensure that once features are added
in Fedora it is unlikely that they have to be removed later again
because they are rejected upstream. It's terrible though if you want to
live on the bleeding edge. Take for example the networking features of
OpenStack that required kernel changes that weren't yet committed
upstream or the fact that Docker required AUFS for a long time. In both
cases Fedora was a terrible platform to develop these technologies
because of its conservative stance.
What I hope will happen with the "Productization" of Fedora is that
these products will be allowed to have a more independent identity and
given more leeway to do things different. I will go so far and hope that
eventually these products will be allowed to have their own policies
regarding packaging and for example be able to ship their own kernel
packages likely to be derived from the main kernel but with additional
patches as the ones mentioned above.
This could be accomplished by making Copr an official Repository that
products are allowed to rely on and which could be used to host
alternative versions of packages. A product XYZ could have a channel XYZ
in Copr and packages that are placed there are preferred over packages
with the same name in the traditional repos.
Anyway my point is that telling product A that they cannot proceed with
their work until product B is released is pretty much the opposite of
what you want to do.
Instead the message should be: "Want to create a new way to manage the
update life-cycle of systems (OSTree)? Want to create a new way to
manage better application deployment (Docker)? Build a Fedora product as
Fedora can provide you with a solid foundation for whatever you are
trying to accomplish!"
Regards,
Dennis
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
