On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:13 AM Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Once upon a time, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > I don't believe that is fair or even true. The premise of the new > > change is to allow alternative experimentation within Fedora proper > > without impacting the mainline distribution. There is no assumption > > that the results will magically replace Fedora in the near future. > > The detailed description says: > > "Changing the main Fedora baseline to new CPUs in place was rejected > as the user base for older machines is still large. But we’d like to > unblock the development and testing of this feature." > > What is the point in continuing development of a rejected feature, other > than to hope that it is accepted in the future? As an experiment. To see if it actually has real, tangible benefit. Plus, the concept here opens other possibilities for different experiments. Fedora, despite being a fast-paced and recent distribution, doesn't really handle experimentation well. It's entirely OK to try something and fail, but we simply don't do that. Also, "future" and "near future" are different, right? I am confident the Change proposers believe this is correct for some future version of Fedora but I do not at all believe they intend to do this and then switch 2 Fedora releases from now. This isn't an attempt to subvert a rejection. > I guess I just don't see the benefit to Fedora to stretch infrastucture > resources even thinner to support somebody's pet project of a feature > that has already been rejected. It feels like the goal is to prove (for > some value of "prove") that the original change is right (for some value > of "right") and then push it through despite the original objections. > If somebody wants to do that, then IMHO they should handle all the > resources, not put it on Fedora. Setting up their own resources is an approach, it's not out-of-hand incorrect, and it is what Fedora has asked people to do for a while now. For net-new architectures (say MIPS or RISC-V), it might even be the most reasonable approach considering the failures that would be associated with that kind of bringup. However, my concern there is that it encourages people to just do it outside of Fedora entirely because the cost is the same. They get no benefit from our community, and Fedora gets no benefit from the work they're doing. The ability to have an alternative buildroot that is targeted at something more stable and easily accomplished seems like it would benefit Fedora more in the long run. > There may be other interesting things this expanded infrastucture could > be used for, but nobody is actually proposing that. What if doing it > for the shadow architecture prevents it being done for anything else > (because there aren't enough resources)? What if we never did anything new because it might require work or resources or change? Sounds like a great way to become irrelevant over time in a frog-in-boiling-water kind of way. I'm not trying to be adversarial here. I do think it's reasonable to consider these things. But to immediately punt on them as the knee-jerk reaction is a mentality that I think will hurt Fedora far more than attempting something and having to scale back if it's too invasive. josh _______________________________________________ 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
