On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:13 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:17 AM Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:51 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Since the @java-maint-sig group is esentially non-responsive, I suggest we do > > > the following: > > > > Thanks for making this distinction - @java-maint-sig group is not the > > same as Java SIG. > > Some of the most active members of Java SIG (like me or OpenJDK > > maintainers) are not > > (and never were) members of @java-maint-sig. > > That's true. The "old" Java SIG was never properly set up as a FAS > group. Its Wiki page has contained obsolete information for *years*, > and the list of members there hasn't been accurate for years, either. Java SIG is an informal group. By definition, SIGs are informal groups within Fedora Project. Therefore there is no formal membership of Java SIG. Anyone interested in contributing to make Java in Fedora better can be considered a member of Java SIG. > On the other hand, you were explicitly welcome to join the newly set > up group, which you never bothered to do, since you were pretending @java-maint-sig evolved from Stewardship SIG, which was formed with a goal of preventing unmaintained packages from being retired, which I don't appreciate. My opinion is that retirement of unmaintained packages is desired. I want Fedora Linux to be a high quality distribution and I believe it's better to have fewer, but better quality packages. This is the primary reason for me not joining @java-maint-sig. Besides that I'm not a big fan of collaborative package maintenance groups such as @java-maint-sig. I prefer a model with a single primary maintainer who owns the package, like a product owner - has the authority to make technical decisions about the package. Similarly to cathedral vs bazaar, both of which are valid software development models. > that Modularity will solve all of humanity's problems, and obviously > preferred to work alone, never offering help or feedback, unless > *maybe* when explicitly asked. Now that modules won't solve Java I never claimed that modularity was perfect, nor that it was better than traditional package maintenance. Modularity solves some important problems, but introduces others. >From my PoV, the most important feature of modularity that I wanted to take advantage of - building packages in a controlled, isolated environment - is now implemented as Koji dynamic sidetags (BTW, I was the original author of sidetag-koji-plugin). Another important feature - private dependencies - is now solved by allowing bundling much more freely and by exempting compat packages from the package review process. Therefore I no longer see modularity as a good approach to maintain default versions Maven and Ant - it could still be used for alternative versions. > packaging either, you're back, and bad-mouthing all the work the SIG > did while it was active to keep the shit from hitting the fan while > you were AWOL, which I find a bit rich. I am back to maintaining non-modular Java packages because I want to keep contributing to Fedora as a Java package maintainer and Fedora engineering leadership decided that non-modular packages are strongly preferred over modules. I don't disagree with that decision and I respectfully obey it. -- Mikolaj Izdebski _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
