On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:39:07AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > It's being pushed so hard because it has been promoted as a top level > objective, and because it's in RHEL now, no one can afford to let it > fail. It *has* to succeed for RHEL, and for Fedora to remain a natural > upstream for RHEL, it *must* succeed here too. Yes; Modularity was created in response to the too-fast/too-slow issue we see from opposite sides of the coin in both Fedora and RHEL -- and work on it was funded by Red Hat. I'm happy to encourage work towards this problem from basically any quarter, because I think it's a fundamental one we need to solve in order to continue to be relevant not just as an upstream for RHEL but in general. > The problem is that the RHEL approach to modules only works because > RHEL is centrally developed and can be correctly coordinated to > overcome issues in the design. This is not true in Fedora, and there > doesn't seem to be allowances for this difference. This seems *partly* fair. It's in some ways a natural consequence of Red Hat funding the work and having to fit into RHEL release schedules. But I think we can also get attention and work towards Fedora's needs -- especially with 8 out the door and 9 just twinkle in product management's eye. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
