On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:02 AM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 11/10/2017 02:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Please just ignore this module nonsense. The more maintainers boycott > it, > >> the less likely it is to succeed and produce completely unnecessary > extra > >> work for you, me and all the other maintainers. > > > > Kevin, please stop the trolling and belittling others. This is out of > line. > > > > How would YOU feel if I kept responding to any messages about KDE with: > > "Please just ignore this KDE nonsense. The more maintainers boycott it, > > the less likely it is to succeed and produce completely unnecessary > > extra work for you, me and all the other maintainers" ? > > > > Kevin aside, the way the modular server was introduced in Fedora 27 > was poorly handled. > > It should have never been declared as a replacement deliverable for > the classic Fedora Server for the Fedora 27 release. It's very clear > now that was a mistake, as now one third of the deliverables aren't > even going to be released until mid January, probably later. The > necessary tooling to properly do modular composes didn't even go live > until a couple of weeks ago. > > If I thought there was a shot to fix this, I'd be proposing that we > *ignore* Modular server for the Fedora 27 release and release the > regular Fedora Server for Fedora 27, and ship the Modular server as > another tech preview post Fedora 27 release. That would give it more > time to bake and deal with the inherent issues with modularity for > Fedora 28. > > This was the approach we took with Atomic replacing the Cloud Edition, > and I have no idea why anyone thought it was a good idea to ignore > that process for modularity. > > The biggest concerns/questions I have about modularity are probably not even the biggest challenges the modularity effort has to overcome. My concerns/questions are really about "what's my role in this?". I'm not involved in the release process, and have almost zero understanding of Fedora compositions, editions, "flavors", "spins", etc. I'm just a lowly maintainer who has one or two packages, and is helping out with a few others, because I use them. I really don't understand how my role changes with the modularity effort... if at all. It is easy to do as Kevin suggests, and simply ignore these efforts... but I fear that's what too many in my position have done so far, and I'm worried that we're going to have our packages excluded from future Fedora, because we don't understand the new composition/release process, which many of us have probably never had to think about before. I'm worried that the effort to ease releases/composes may make it much harder for regular package maintainers to contribute to Fedora. That said, I really don't want to be critical of the modularity effort. >From what I've read, I think it has a rational basis. At this point, I just want to understand it better, so I know how I can continue to contribute to Fedora for the packages I care about, and how this all will affect me.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
