-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 09:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:05 AM Igor Raits > <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 08:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Hello Fedora Community! > > > > Hi Josh, > > > > > I am a long-time Fedora Community member, and may be familiar to > > > many > > > through previous FESCo or devel list discussions and passionate > > > debates. However I write to you today with a different community > > > hat > > > on, as a lead Architect for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The RHEL > > > organization has been following the modularity discussions within > > > Fedora, particularly around ELN, and often the question of what > > > plans > > > we have for modularity in RHEL 9 has come up. Our Fedora Project > > > Lead > > > and a number of FESCo members have reached out and asked if we > > > can > > > provide some perspective here, and I am both happy and excited to > > > have > > > that opportunity. > > > > > > As the Fedora Council has pointed out [1], we certainly > > > acknowledge > > > there are improvements to be made and have a team already working > > > on > > > them. They recently outlined their plans in conjunction with our > > > Product Management team in a Fedora Council call as well [2]. > > > We’re > > > continuing to invest time and effort in this packaging solution > > > and > > > are confident that the team can deliver against their plan. It > > > is > > > somewhat of a new experience for all of us when Red Hat is direct > > > with > > > our product intentions, but we discussed the larger gaps we see > > > with > > > usage in RHEL and are putting our efforts towards solving those > > > gaps > > > with this plan. > > > > > > Modularity is important to RHEL and those efforts are already > > > underway. We will be leveraging modularity in RHEL 9 where it > > > most > > > makes sense. This is primarily centered around our Application > > > Streams concept, which has been well received by our customer > > > base. > > > Providing a consistent but improved experience is the base > > > requirement, which allows us to have continuity from RHEL 8 to > > > RHEL 9 > > > and lowers the hurdle for our customers when upgrading from one > > > major > > > version to another. > > > > It is nice to hear that it is helping to solve problems in RHEL > > (even > > though I've heard many people saying that it is nightmare now). Is > > there a list of requirements that you have so that we could > > potentially > > develop something that would be useful to Fedora same as for RHEL > > 10+? > > The dnf team is working to gather those internally. RHEL 10+ is > still > ~5 years away, and while we're working hard to develop our product > roadmap, that's still far enough off that we haven't put much down in > terms of requirements :) > > > > It is always good to push the boundaries and search for better > > > ideas > > > and improvements, and that is part of what makes Fedora great. > > > We > > > are > > > doing this in the context of the RHEL 9 release as well, so our > > > near > > > term timeline and requirements mean we are working on evolving > > > modularity, not a revolution or a replacement. We are excited by > > > ELN, > > > as it presents a possible space to allow those that want to > > > continue > > > to iterate on modules a place to do so without necessarily > > > impacting > > > the broader Fedora distribution in its entirety. It is my > > > personal > > > hope that we can use that opportunity to improve modules and > > > modularity in the open source, Fedora-first way we’d prefer. Our > > > near > > > term effort to improve the existing modularity implementation > > > ahead > > > of > > > RHEL 9 needs to occur, and we’d like to do that work in Fedora, > > > rather > > > than in closed product development. Longer term, we are open to > > > contributing to a better replacement that meets many of the same > > > goals. This is what makes our distribution ecosystem work well, > > > and > > > not having that upstream lessens the value we all get from such > > > experimentation in the open. > > > > While I support you that we should do it in Fedora, does this > > essentially mean that this technology is useful only for RHEL and > > you > > do not plan to develop it *for Fedora*, but rather *for RHEL in > > Fedora*? > > I wouldn't say that, nor do I personally think that. I think there > is > value for Fedora as well. Matthew Miller has often given a common > example of having two streams of software that can build across RHEL, > Fedora, CentOS, etc. This is value for end user consumption, and > having older software available in Fedora is a usecase modularity can > help address. However, I would prefer to avoid discussing value to > Fedora in this thread. There are so many other threads debating that > already :) Let's agree to disagree :) > > > Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo and the > > > wider > > > community understand where Red Hat is headed with modularity on > > > the > > > Enterprise side. > > > > Sadly no. It helps to understand your plans, however it does not > > help > > to understand the reasons behind, whether you can't change UX in > > the > > RHEL 9, or you think that technology is good enough for your use- > > cases > > or any other reasons. > > The base requirement is that the UX remain largely the same. As I > said, from a RHEL perspective, we need RHEL 8 and RHEL 9 to have > commonality so that our customers are not forced to learn something > entirely different to adopt RHEL 9. Improvements in the underlying > functionality are of course welcome and planned, but we are not going > to do something like replace modules with a different artifact type, > or add separate discrete repos per Application Stream, etc. > > > Basically this email just says "We decided for Modularity in RHEL 9 > > and > > we would like to do it in Fedora Infrastructure first". > > Mostly, yes. We were told there was ambiguity on whether modularity > would be used in RHEL 9 or not. Very clearly it will, so I wanted to > get ahead of that. Sure, I think this is answered quite clearly here. Thanks. > josh > - -- Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEcwgJ58gsbV5f5dMcEV1auJxcHh4FAl7rbDUACgkQEV1auJxc Hh7+ORAAg1jmZZvcCmqeW6YCi44eFnXERea6Z2QTXSVmZYINFVoATQeuzDFElEOF ETi72MX7bAw3KwjMJU++vlOKof8WpBHV2fEC1ldUeq2vk+FrCvBKEyiGrXmtkXnu hRJ7BzqBBfcPyZzplpXBrXqFapr0vLYwvT9RRRThHWMvLaGneMUF/q4kPgKT+Pm3 +K8Vo5hDL8fCjw3XdnYNLaAkGGeR4XxJ13D/i+9JmGPd41kv2/eVrui5N/FTRC1L a+cJXJSQiBE0iO7oe8kDtKvSmYUTSG0sZMRR15MastdxbRyYYDG6TVL99XYG1PuA iGQXIJGIUdb81ttdPD/6gsefk/StSZKDL+CSLfCoQuqEdqBHhjha9W6WQVJxClMk iSpVHGZpUF9mtsPqKQ3kV4q77w8M0Qz1GbqpLP2H+iVtzVtqQfRJ3QdD8PZDkuBu +e40oTC5AOopo5P8/p/VD1um2G4K7d7GmspsOOGoNOVDUwEV3/KjXbW5CCeSOC1v soEH41S8idQygVxI02+BrJTdNfJUrz+o6HaqmY4TfXZoXRe5jBX+9gj0JofFlis0 cgTuixHAljPT2btC7IP4xrdTr3WdCnZJAjaqTANYZclv/TGZeGTKap92pIV405nu 8cxjkd9mCHsL6mUApyIXxaro2yJ5y7ShRmWl5dO9+P1qeJjYqtY= =OmeX -----END 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
