Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 09:07:27AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Because this keeps coming up, we talked about this at the Fedora Council
> > meeting today. Our goals for modularity are:
> >   2. Those alternate streams should be able to have different lifecycles.
>  
> Hmm, it sounds like the Council hasn't taken into account the constraints
> on lifecycle of modules that we have slowly discovered during the last
> two years, constraints that are now part of FESCo-approved policy.
> 
> Essentially, modules in Fedora are only allowed to EOL at EOL of Fedora
> release. And to preserve stability for users, a.k.a. following the Update
> Policy, modules should only change to new major version at Fedora
> releases. This is exactly the same as for "normal" rpms.

This seems appropriate for default steams, but modules should be able to
have alternate, opt-in streams which either a) update on a rolling or other
cadence or b) choose to keep building the older version across the release
boundary.

The tooling should make this clear to the users.

> The lifecycle of modules in Fedora must be the same as lifecycle of
> Fedora releases, so no "different lifecycle" is possible.
> 
> >   1. Users should have alternate streams of software available.
> >   3. Packaging an individual stream for multiple outputs should be easier
> >      than before.
> 
> Those *are* useful goals, but they should not be tied to specific technology,
> we should only care about the end-result.

Yes, that's true from a Council point of view.

However, I also have a pretty strong bias towards people who showed up to
do the work, and the decisions they've made. That doesn't mean we're stuck
and can't adjust -- in fact, adjusting as we've gone along is a lot of why
we're where we are now. But unless someone shows up with people-power and
funding to do it, I take kind of a skeptical view of proposals to start a
whole new approach from scratch.

> Thus, please replace "Our goals for modularity are" with "What we hope
> to achieve with modularity" or even "Our goal is for users to be able to".

I don't really see a meaningful difference there. 

-- 
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux