On 02. 04. 20 20:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:56 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The change proposal received overly negative feedback by the packager community
as represented both by RHEL¹ and non-RHEL maintainers. Despite being reworked
several times, none of this feedback was reflected in the proposal, only new
reasons why this is going to be done the original way were added. It seems that
feedback is collected not to find the best technical solution, but rather to
find ways to justify a solution that's already decided.
This is needlessly antagonistic, Miro. We've collected the feedback in
good faith, examined it and then identified shortcomings with it. For
the sake of clarity in the Change Proposal, I've recorded that
reasoning there.
This is how I saw your responses to the received feedback. I now see that for
you, this is "identifying shortcomings", however for me and others I've talked
to and who also participate in this thread, this seemed like a solution has
already been decided and our feedback is being rejected. As a change owner, you
have every right to do that, but as long as I don't follow or agree with your
rationale for this, I'll vote -1. (And as a side note, that might be completely
fine at the end, if you get a majority despite that.)
Either way, sorry for being antagonistic. I always do my best to disagree
respectfully. I guess I'll try harder next time.
Key questions in the *Detailed Description* remain "out of scope of ELN" or not
answered clearly.
If something is not clear, please constructively offer that
information. I've been doing my best to rephrase and clarify anything
that has come up. Anything remaining that is "out of scope of ELN" is
literally just that. ELN's scope is largely "Make Fedora Rawhide more
useful to downstream so that downstream developers will work there
instead of internally".
Others are already reporting back in this thread on what's not clear to them.
I've also included some of those in my reply to Aleksandra's response to my vote.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/SFTKW7ZC2WVA22HKLHOA5ZZHVPPU6XTB/
While benefiting the entire Fedora/RHEL/CentOS/EPEL ecosystem is certainly a
good goal, I believe that doing this in a way that alienates a significant part
of our packagers is a disservice to Fedora. The concerned packagers believe that
Fedora is (and should remain) the upstream for RHEL, not RHEL itself. This might
be shifting us to the undesirable mindset that Fedora is only a test bed for
RHEL or a RHEL alpha version.
I think you're missing a major point here. The purpose of ELN is for
*that* to be the RHEL test-bed/Alpha. But we want it to stay as close
as possible to Fedora Rawhide because that is how we solve two
problems: 1) lack of consistent involvement by Red Hat engineers in
Fedora and 2) eliminate the long lag-time between when features land
in Fedora and when someone evaluates them for RHEL.
The purpose of ELN is to be RHEL test-bed/Alpha? I am genuinely lost in all the
stated purposes and goals of ELN (as also said in the e-mail linked above).
Either way, If we want:
a) ELN to be built from Fedora sources and stay as close as possible to it
b) ELN to be RHEL test-bed/Alpha
c) Fedora not to be RHEL test-bed/Alpha
Aren't those contradicting things? What major point I am missing here?
For me this feels like a step back to the [discontinued Fedora
Core](https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-January/msg00091.html),
where the packages that were included in RHEL could only be maintained by their
RHEL maintainers. Fedora relies on the contributions of non-RHEL developers —
and those often have little interest in downstream work. If we alienate the
community contributors, it will ultimately lead to a worse RHEL down the road.
I have no idea where you're getting this from, as we've tried to be
very clear from the start that we want to make the pipeline of Fedora
-> RHEL much more clear. We're not changing access permissions on
these repositories. We're going to be opening up some of the "secret
sauce" so that more of the community can see what we are testing. They
will have greater insight into the potential usage of their packages.
To clarify: In Fedora Core/Extras the separation was by access permissions. Here
it is based on knowledge and interests (or a lack thereof). People with zero
knowledge and interest in "RHEL next" development will not be able to contribute
to Fedora packages (as easy as before) because the sources are no longer only
meant for Fedora.
For the stated reasons I am *-1 for this change in its current form*.
That is your privilege as a member of FESCo. As I've said, however, I
think you've misunderstood the situation.
Do you want to leave it at "this is your privilege" or would you rather try to
lower the level misunderstanding? In other words, do you think it is still worth
it to have this conversation?
As said on the mailing list, I'd appreciate if you take the feedback provided by
the packagers more seriously and adjust the proposal accordingly.
I have read and responded to the feedback as best I know how. Please
do not confuse "I disagree and here are my reasons" with not listening
to the feedback.
I've asked you to take it more seriously, I was not accusing you for not
listening to it. I guess what I meant to say is "give the people who provided
the feedback some benefit of a doubt and some merit and work with them to
understand their concerns better" -- but I realize there will always be some
level of disagreement.
Lastly, I don't know if you reread the latest updates (that I made
around three hours ago to the Change Proposal), but I *did*
acknowledge that we are going to incorporate the possibility of
maintaining separate specs for ELN and Rawhide for any maintainer who
absolutely wants to do more manual work. The exact mechanism is going
to at least partly depend on the results of the dist-git forge move,
so I haven't incorporated that into the proposal. Functionally, it
will be very similar to maintaining a separate branch, though.
Well, sadly I had not, because I was writing that thing for more than 3 hours
trying to not sound like a demanding passive aggressive naysayer :(
If I had reread the latest version, my reply would be different. (Although there
are far too many open questions in this ML thread, I won't be changing my vote
to +1 yet, you can consider my -1 withdrawn for now.)
Thank You for adding that \o/ -- this is precisely what I meant by "taking the
feedback more seriously".
I could imagine this latest addition incorporated into the proposal better,
would you like to "meet" and discuss that?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
