Le 2019-12-02 07:47, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
Hi Neal,
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:58 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think we need to recognize that we've done some poor optimization
for the majority of packager workflows. Even if we consider modules,
the vast majority of components will never be modularized. Moreover,
we already know that the overwhelming majority of specs are managed
identically across branches.
Yeah, indeed. I think this (optimization of packager workflows) was
never an explicit goal of people working on Modularity.
And for that reason alone, it should have been sent directly back to
the drawing board.
Creating new tooling, without trying to optimize the workflow of the
intended users of the tooling, was always doomed to have no user
adoption community-side.
Making tooling for fairies, because you can redefine at will what the
fairies want, and no actual fairy will ever materialize to contradict
you, is easier design-side. But, it’s 100% a gamble that can (and most
often will) misfire.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
_______________________________________________
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
