On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 11:52, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:12 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/22/20 6:33 PM, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: [...] > > > I'll reiterate: > > > > > > We don't want to fork packages from the Fedora Rawhide. We don't > > > want to provide eln-branch as an option to overcome build failures > > > in ELN. ELN's purpose is to provide motivation and tooling for > > > downstream developers to work on Fedora, not to share parts of > > > Fedora infrastructure for downstream developers to do their > > > downstream work. > > > > From where I stand, this gcc eln branch / update in ELN seem to be > > primarily motivated by downstream. But I agree that I might miss all > > the important information to make that claim, so I'll try to not be > > biased. > > It would be nice if we could stop playing political games and start > looking at the content of the work, rather than discussing who brings > it. I couldn't care less who brings it. We're discussing "how" it's brought in. And I don't have the slightest idea why you're accusing Miro of playing a political game, whatever that means. There's nothing political in what he wrote in my opinion. > eln-branch to handle downstream incompatibility with rawhide and > eln-branch made to test Fedora features are two different types of > work. As far as I remember the rule was: "no eln branches", period. Nothing about "oh, it's fine if it's to address downstream incompatibility". Has that changed? > > > We expect downstream to have its own infrastructure and process > > > for branched packages. And we do have it in RHEL. If you want to > > > discuss how exactly RHEL downstream does it, I can provide more > > > information. But I consider it to be offtopic in this mailing > > > list, or at least in this thread. > > > > I thought I have a decent idea about how this is done. For example > > that there will be no eln branches and this will be done "somewhere > > else later". At least that is what we've been told when ELN was > > introduced. So I seem to have the wrong idea. Could you please > > summarize this? What kind of downstream changes will happen in ELN > > branches and what kind of downstream changes will happen "somewhere > > else later"? > > Again, you are mixing up changes made in downstream and changes in > Fedora sponsored by downstream. > > GCC11 is not a downstream change. > > Of course downstream is interested in landing GCC11 in Fedora as fast > and as clean as possible, why wouldn't it. And yes downstream sponsors > this work in Fedora. Why do you need an ELN branch (which the ELN Change proposal said would never happen), then? Why can't you do it in rawhide directly via a Fedora Change? > > > At the same time, we would like to use ELN as an experimental > > > playground for features, when it makes sense, when it is helpful > > > for Fedora and when these additional features don't contradict the > > > primary purpose of the ELN buildroot. > > > > Do I understand correctly that as long as the downstream work aligns > > with "helpful for Fedora" it is OK to have an eln branch? > > As long as it is not a downstream work, but a feature of Fedora. If it's a feature of Fedora, why are you trying to do it outside the standard Fedora process? > > > We consider the update to GCC11 to be one of such features. It is > > > not a fork of the Rawhide into a downstream branch, it is a future > > > Fedora feature. > > > > Fedora features are coordinated via the Fedora change process. May > > we please have a GCC 11 Fedora change proposal that explains why is > > this done in ELN-only first instead of "just doing it"? Is see many > > packagers would like to be involved in the process and I feel like > > that they have been bypassed. > > From where I stand I don't see many packagers who are feeling > bypassed, I see you trying to control how development is organized for > some other component. And I don't see the reason for that. I am feeling bypassed and several others have expressed similar impression in this very thread. Development of a major feature in Fedora should be done via the Change process. Major GCC updates have been done this way as long as I remember. If you want to do it another way, then I think you should discuss it with FESCo first. > For those who are indeed interested in the work around gcc and ELN, I > wrote this mail. Despite the way it is treated here on the mailing > list, it is an actual invitation. > But it is a preliminary work which has no impact on anyone but the > SIGs and maintainers involved in it. It is just too early to handle it > via the Change process. The feedback you received clearly indicates otherwise. [...] > > You say this has nothing to do with downstream, but it surely seems > > like it is driven by downstream discussions. > > I don't say it has nothing to do with downstream. I am saying that > GCC11 is not a downstream change. Again, why are you trying to do it in a downstream branch, then. Especially when we were told there would be no downstream branches? > > I'd be happy to be wrong here. Could you please point me to the Fedora > > discussion about upgrading gcc in ELN first? > > We were supposed to have this discussion right now. Unfortunately you > choose to discuss the motivations of people doing ELN rather than the > work they do. I don't see how such conclusion could be drawn from Miro's messages. Miro is not asking why you're doing this at all, he's asking why are you doing this in this particular way that's bypassing standard Fedora process and going contrary to previous assurances. You have not provided any explanation for this divergence. [...] > But treating every update from ELN SIG with yet another round of > conversation about "downstream secretly trying to contribute to > Fedora" is also not helping. I'd rather spend time on actual work. > > I mean "secret downstream agenda to update GCC in Fedora", really? All we're asking is that you do this in rawhide, via the Change process, as usual. Or, if you have a good reason to follow a different process, go to FESCo and explain before turning things upside down. >From where I stand, this looks like "The ELN SIG is doing a GCC11 update for Fedora in eln branch which they previously said would never be created." This feels... wrong. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ 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
