'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody > with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional > rings that address communities where self-hosting is a foreign concept > may be useful and desirable. Making Fedora a first class OS for > languages where rpm packaging doesn't make sense is great! One thing I find strange is that while by some measurements the rings effort would be a major change, by others it seems to be a minor tweak of what exists today. I haven't seen for example any evaluation or discussion of the apparent assumption that Ring 0 will be binary RPM packages, maintained how they always have been. I haven't seen much discussion of "should ring 0 be RPMs". To give a random contrast, look at OpenEmbedded: http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Main_Page As far as being a flexible base layer that is *explicitly* not itself a Product, they do this *really* well. One thing I like beyond the technology is how they have one git repository for the core, then explicit "layers" which are also git repositories. These aggregate maintenance of *multiple* components and create a very *collaborative* model. This is not generally true in the "big bag of packages" model since the core/extras merge. One small thing we could do to try to emulate this for ring0 would be to put all of the spec files for Ring 0 into one git repository for example. And have actual peer review for patches, just like one sees on: http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-September/thread.html -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
