On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:21 AM Owen Taylor <otaylor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor <otaylor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > But for the next thousand or so Fedora developers, the release cycle > > > is actually not a big deal - not something that takes much of their > > > time - and it gives them a regular place to land feature work. And > > > Fedora users appreciate a timely updated operating system (without > > > having random rebases trickle in.) > > > > It's not a big deal because they don't participate in making the > > release nor do they really know about all the duct tape and bailing > > wire holding all the machinery in place. Just like most of them don't > > appreciate the heroics involved from Fedora QA and rel-eng and the > > dozen or so people that regularly go well beyond the extra mile to get > > it out the door. This isn't done out of malice on their part. It's > > mostly that they just don't see it. > > If we distribute this work out across the 1000 developers, we'll make > life better for heroes, and it's *still* not going to be a big deal > for the 1000 developers. I would say it will be a learning curve and there will be complaints because it's change and people seem to only want change if it's the change they want or otherwise doesn't impact them. That's going to be a big deal to some :) Generally though, yes. We need to distribute the burden to the package sets and whomever maintains them. > > > In other words, the "technical debt" we are trying to solve here is > > > not project wide and doesn't justify slowing down the whole project > > > permanently. > > > > I completely disagree. Our release process and tooling is built on > > heroism and tech debt. At some point, that is going to cause > > significant burnout and then people will just wonder what happened > > when those people stop doing releases. I think it's better to raise > > awareness at the project level, and build something that is > > sustainable rather than predicated on "small group of people killing > > themselves for the greater good". That starts with individual package > > CI gating, and goes all the way through integration testing between > > packages in a gated manner, into how we actually *create* all of that > > plus the things we deem worth of releasing. > > I think you are misunderstanding me somehow. I'm 100% on-board with > improving the processes, catching compose problems in an automated and > early fashion, making developers fix their own problems, and generally > making releases a less heroic process. And if that requires a > temporary cadence chance to get the retooling done, then it's worth > it. Ah, good! > But Brendan's proposal to permanently slow down the cadence seems to > make the assumption that the current release cycle is a heroic effort > for the entire project - that we're moving too fast to stay on our > feet. And I don't think that's the case. That would be a concern to me as well, assuming we stuck with a *single* cadence and a *single* platform. With the lifecycle Objective, aren't we targeting multiple cadences and lifecycles? I mean, we have this today with Fedora Atomic/CoreOS vs. "regular" Fedora. Maybe Brendan was thinking singular, but I would very much like the ability in our tooling a process to have both the faster moving cadence of today AND a slower moving one. That's another reason I view a temporary halt as worthwhile. If done correctly, it enables Fedora to fill more usecases and lifecycles than we could ever accomplish with a single release. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
