Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:57 AM Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 09:56 +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: >>> On 10/7/19 8:55 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >>>> I have to ask, given containers are so popular and can deal with >>>> any dependency without conflicting with system installed binaries, >>>> should we really continue with this very complicated modular design >>>> ? >>> >>> There are only few people who fully understand how modularity works >>> today (contyk who designed modulemd, jmracek and me who implemented >>> the DNF part and few others). I agree that the modular design should >>> be simplified. If we don't lower the bar, the complexity might >>> prevent from wider adoption. >> >> Yes, at the moment it is a too complex system. > > Do you gain something out of that complexity that's worth it? Or is > that an open question? And is it a design requirement? > >>> As a former release engineer, I'm personally unhappy about lack of >>> upgrade paths between module contexts and I believe that fixing this >>> part of modularity design could lead to desired simplification. >>> Unfortunately based on discussion I had with contyk yesterday, I >>> don't believe it's achievable without making *huge* changes in the >>> modularity design and the build infrastructure/process. >> >> Well, the way I see it, if it is not usable we shouldn't inflict it >> on users unless there is a clear and overwhelming technical advantage >> in doing it. So far it eludes me what advantage modularity gives that >> is so important. > > As a contrarian, I'd be suspicious if there's complete agreement on > any new thing. Do you disagree with the stated advantages of > modularity? Or do you not understand the advantages of modularity? Do > you think modularity is a solution in search of a problem? i.e. you > don't even agree or understand the stated problem modularity is > intended to solve, even before the questions of whether modularity > adequately addresses the problem(s)? I believe the point most of us are struggling with is: there's no definition of what advantages of modularity are. There may or may not be some idea of what the advantages could be, which is a different thing. This makes it really hard to argue whether it is or isn't succeeding when there isn't a criteria for success. Lack of such information places it firmly in the class of "solution in search of a problem". Thanks, --Robbie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
