On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > JB> Hm. On the one hand, that's a fair assumption to make. On the > JB> other hand, it seems unnecessarily adversarial. > > I certainly didn't intend it that way; hell, none of that even entered > my mind. To flip it around, to be completely honest your response comes > off just this side of overly defensive (which I would wager you also > didn't intend). But you brought it up, so here's my thought process. Indeed. I didn't mean to sound defensive. I also didn't think you had any malice behind your reply for what it's worth. I was surprised by the tone of indifference. It caught me off-guard. I intended to invoke discussion about the "scope" comment. I succeeded there at least, even if I failed in other ways :). > As a person not privy to Red Hat internals, I really have no idea what > state things are in there, but I have to assume that Red Hat is well > along with RHEL8 packaging and so I would be surprised if any changes > made to a rawhide branch in Fedora now would make any difference to how > RHEL8 builds. Assumptions are bad. Not being able to talk about future looking events is awkward. Red Hat is trying to get better at both. > So think of it from my perspective, not having any knowledge of Red Hat > release dates and policy. My interpretation of what Florian wrote was > that doing this (I assumed in rawhide) could potentially help the RHEL8 > developers. Which is great; everyone needs all the help they can get. > But if that's the case, then either RHEL8 hasn't even been branched yet > or it has been branched and someone has already had to make those > changes and they didn't flow back out to Fedora. I certainly thought > RHEL8 was further along than that, so.... Small caveat, nobody said RHEL 8. Troy said the next major version of RHEL will have python3, that's all. This is where the awkwardness comes in. I think people can appreciate not being able to talk publicly about any current or future development activities for unreleased products. As for the assumption on when/if/how RHEL development occurs, those are easy to make and I don't fault anyone for thinking along the lines you laid out. I would offer that Troy would not have made a request if it was pointless to do so. That benefits nobody. I would also suggest that by making the request, he isn't assuming he can just script and fix without coordination. > JB> So when a community member reaches out and asks people to help out > JB> with a small change to packages that *already* conditionalize > JB> something, I don't see why that isn't a reasonable request. > > I never intended to imply that it wasn't. Only that it wouldn't really > matter, and that I didn't think it was worth making any big effort to > convert these things, since things have to be manually branched into > EPEL8 anyway so the maintainer who wants to have them branched there can > simply fix them then. Right, that's what I mean though. It's a small change that a community member asked for help with. If we approach that with positive intent in mind, he's asking because it *does* matter in some way. And if you'll allow me a little latitude, I'd also point out that while there are many package maintainers that maintain across the Fedora and RHEL divide, Red Hat is an open source company. Fedora in an upstream for RHEL, and whenever possible it tries to contribute back to the upstream source to lessen burden for those maintainers. The more the specs are shared, the further that benefit goes. To do otherwise would be weird. > And of course I offered another solution to this kind of thing, which > would fix a whole class of this kind of thing for all time, but that > idea never seems to get any traction. (Probably because I never find > the time to push it forward.) That would be interesting to see. > JB> At the very least, I did not expect a discussion about the scope of > JB> Fedora with such a small request. > > I didn't either, but then I was quite surprised to see a suggestion that > a community member changing an %if clause in a Fedora package now would > somehow make any difference to what RHEL8 is certainly already doing. We were both surprised then! > JB> It would have been pretty trivial to script this and use a > JB> provenpackager to make the changes across the board. > > Well, we do have a procedure for doing that and which even encourages > such things. I don't think it's an entirely trivial problem, though, > but certainly if someone wants to take it up I'm not going to object. I think, in this case, we'd like to avoid that. I get that people don't always read devel list so the request and this discussion might not even register to the majority of maintainers. At least we have it in the archives for reference though. Thanks for your willingness to discuss. I love it when something starts trending toward understanding instead of escalating into a flamefest! josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
