Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Am 30.07.2013 11:35, schrieb Ian Malone: > This is the price you pay for having updated versions of libraries > with security fixes and functionality, and it's why Linux > distributions use open source (and one reason non OS software is > tricky), provided the library API hasn't changed you just

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 29 July 2013 03:32, Subhendu Ghosh wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: >> >> > >> > In the OS/App differentiation, you are expecting each is coming from a >> > different source. >> > Apps are either boxed, or coming from a project. >> > The app provider should fi

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > In the OS/App differentiation, you are expecting each is coming from a > different source. > > Apps are either boxed, or coming from a project. > > The app provider should fix their version of libxml, and the OS provider > should fix th

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:30:19PM -0400, Subhendu Ghosh wrote: > The app provider should fix their version of libxml The problem is: they don't. Walk up to some random Windows machine and look how many vulnerable copies of zlib (or some other popular library) you can find. Aside from maybe Google

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

- Original Message - > From: "Brendan Jones" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:31:25 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock > talk) > > > > >>>>

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/27/2013 12:36 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le samedi 27 juillet 2013 à 11:31 +0200, Brendan Jones a écrit : Is it even feasible to use the Fedora Java/JBOSS stack unless you are an existing customer? There is no customer for Fedora, so I am not sure to fully follow you. And last time I t

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le samedi 27 juillet 2013 à 11:31 +0200, Brendan Jones a écrit : > Is it even feasible to use the Fedora Java/JBOSS stack unless you are an > existing customer? There is no customer for Fedora, so I am not sure to fully follow you. And last time I tested, ovirt was working on fedora, so jboss

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/23/2013 08:38 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: I've found it very hard to find the right place to jump into this discussion. So, I'll just put out some of my own thoughts about what I want to see out of Fedora, and then point out how I think this matches or contrasts with Matts proposal. Fedora

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On the other hand some projects might benefit from stable Ring0, 1, which wouldn't change unexpectedly. No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not what currently happens either). Beg to differ. There are lots of asynchronous dep changes (typically version upgrades) i

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > but to say a core / apps separation is fundamentally flawed is incorrect > > it is correct > > * go and play around with "ldd /usr/bin/whatever-application > * look how many share openssl, nspr, nss, libxml and a lot of more > * and now dra

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Am 26.07.2013 14:20, schrieb Mark Bidewell: > Honestly, I keep seeing this argument in this thread, but it doesn't square > with reality. The concept of an OS and > all of its apps as a monolithic distribution with a single release schedule > is unique to Linux. Every other major > OS (with the

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

you would read careful you have noticed the "Apache 2.4" which was never shipped for F17 i really do not justify my decisions inside support cycles because *you* quote out of context and sound like "booh nobody is running Fedora in production" because *that* is bizarre with a @fo

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Am 26.07.2013 00:04, schrieb Eric Smith: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: >> if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache >> in production on Fdora 17 > > I wouldn't run *anything* in production on Fedora 17. That's what the > downstream "ente

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

- Original Message - > From: "Peter MacKinnon" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:33:18 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock > talk) >

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/26/2013 05:23 AM, drago01 wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote: Whenever I go

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:02 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote: > >> > >> No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not > >> what currently happens either). > >> Actually its the opposite you want to consider the "whole picture" > >>

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

2 types of OS - headless servers and UI enabled systems. Need to cater for both. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:02 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote: > >> > >> No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not > >> what currently happens eit

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote: >> >> No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not >> what currently happens either). >> Actually its the opposite you want to consider the "whole picture" >> when doing changes and not think >> of independent pieces stuc

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

> > > No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not > what currently happens either). > Actually its the opposite you want to consider the "whole picture" > when doing changes and not think > of independent pieces stuck together. That's why the "lets build some > core platform

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> >> On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > Whenever I go to a tech meetup o

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote: Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup company, their developers are inevitably usin

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 07:25:32PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Right now, we have a unified system which we pretty much guarantee cannot be > > targeted at all. It's moving too fast at every level. > Honestly this is the only thing that holds together Fedora at all. The 6 > month release c

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:22 -0600, Eric Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:04 -0600, Eric Smith wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald > >> wrote: > >> > if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, an

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > i really do not justify my decisions inside support cycles > because *you* quote out of context and sound like "booh nobody > is running Fedora in production" And I didn't say that nobody is running Fedora in production. -- devel mailing li

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:22:59PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote: > And what are you going to do for security updates on Fedora 17? Live > without? Backport and rebuild everything yourself? Update to Fedora 18 or 19 in the next five days. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ -- dev

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:04 -0600, Eric Smith wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald >> wrote: >> > if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache >> > in production on Fdora 17 >> >> I wouldn't

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:04 -0600, Eric Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache > > in production on Fdora 17 > > I wouldn't run *anything* in production on Fedora 17. That's what the > dow

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache > in production on Fdora 17 I wouldn't run *anything* in production on Fedora 17. That's what the downstream "enterprise" distributions are for. -- devel mailing list d

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Am 25.07.2013 20:53, schrieb drago01: >> i saw a lot of (successful) competitors come and go in the >> past 10 years in case of our business and if we would have >> followed them bldindly we would have gone down the same way > > There is a difference between "follow blindly" and bury your head i

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 25.07.2013 20:29, schrieb drago01: >>> I am fine with splitting out the actual enduser apps out, but that's >>> nothing that can happen before we actually have a sane concept of >>> apps. But for the rest we should work on creating one

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Am 25.07.2013 20:29, schrieb drago01: >> I am fine with splitting out the actual enduser apps out, but that's >> nothing that can happen before we actually have a sane concept of >> apps. But for the rest we should work on creating one strong unified >> platform rather than a conglomerate of puzz

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> > > Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup >> > > company, their deve

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > > Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup > > > company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually > > > proprietary

Re: Bundling (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/24/2013 11:03 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Mer 24 juillet 2013 16:17, Peter MacKinnon a écrit : A generalization which I would disagree with in the Java space. I think many projects eventually reach "steady-state" where they have acquired the set of dep bundles they need to satisfy their

Re: Bundling (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Le Mer 24 juillet 2013 16:17, Peter MacKinnon a écrit : > A generalization which I would disagree with in the Java space. I think > many projects > eventually reach "steady-state" where they have acquired the set of dep > bundles > they need to satisfy their runtime and test requirements. For exa

Bundling (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

New thread to get clear of some of the flames and wreckage... On 07/23/2013 05:25 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:34:15PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote: Well, compat libraries are certainly an option but I view that as a tactical solution to an institutional, um, challenge

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Dne 22.7.2013 18:29, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a): As for cruft in the spec files, why not bring a proposal to the FPC to update the packaging guidelines stating that Fedora spec files must not contain RHEL/EPEL macros? Then the git branches would be maintained separately and the spec file

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, "An Architecture for a More Agile Fedora" (). It represents a big change to how we as the Fedora project put together our distribution. I've gone through several drafts

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:25:31PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/23/2013 11:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >you claimed more than once that they are a less woth part of the community > >because they get paid for their work and are not completly free in their > >doings > > Yes not be

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > The fact is we live in a rather thankless community and that is something we > might be better at something that Picard would indeed want us to do. Thank you for inviting me, with your foul attitude, to be condescending and to ask a

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Hi On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:25 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Yes not because they work for Red Hat but because I value people > dedicating and invest their free time to the project more then I value > people that get paid to work on Fedora and are doing so on corporate time > How do yo

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Without putting *any* blame on infra, I think that explains why no startup > is using Fedora (which is the reason advanced to justify this proposal). A > startup needs to build its own infra from scratch as fast as possible. Replying to t

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Am 23.07.2013 22:32, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > On 07/23/2013 08:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> and from here is clear that you *blindly* shoot around at Redhat *blindly >> and nothing else* > > This was everything but blindly shot I'm perfectly well aware that he's a Red > Hat employee

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Am 24.07.2013 00:46, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > On 07/23/2013 09:11 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> For the record, I'd like you to have a look at basically any >> community-reported bug in the 'sssd' component of BZ or >> community-submitted patches on the sssd-devel list. That's a project

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 11:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: you claimed more than once that they are a less woth part of the community because they get paid for their work and are not completly free in their doings Yes not because they work for Red Hat but because I value people dedicating and invest their f

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 09:11 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: For the record, I'd like you to have a look at basically any community-reported bug in the 'sssd' component of BZ or community-submitted patches on the sssd-devel list. That's a project comprised nearly entirely of Red Hat employees.[1] You may no

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Jul 22, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 15:38, Matthew Miller a écrit : > >> Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup >> company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually >> proprietary) desktop OS, plus a no

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:34:15PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote: > > > Well, compat libraries are certainly an option but I view that as a tactical > solution to an institutional, um, challenge. > And I believe that is what Matt is driving at: sustainable solutions that > satisfy the user/admin n

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/23/2013 04:07 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you >> attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can? >> > > For the fir

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 08:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: and from here is clear that you*blindly* shoot around at Redhat*blindly and nothing else* This was everything but blindly shot I'm perfectly well aware that he's a Red Hat employee I even sent him email at his Red Hat address last week. If you d

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Am 23.07.2013 22:07, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you >> attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can? > > For the first you do realize that Red Hat is a corporate and my v

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 20:55, Kevin Fenzi a écrit : > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:38:17 -0400 > Matthias Clasen wrote: > > ...snip... > >> PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora >> infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really >> depressing state of affairs. Ch

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can? For the first you do realize that Red Hat is a corporate and my view of corporate involvement is the same in open source comm

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/23/2013 12:58 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:54:27PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote: So far, so good...sort of. We can make the basic use case and tests work with the modified dependencies but in doing so we risk giving up parity with the Apache baseline (including the

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/23/2013 07:17 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Anyhow, I think this will be my last post here. Is it really that hard for you to provide a list with services that aren't running Fedora so I myself and the rest of the community can look at which those services are and if it indeed is impossible to

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Am 23.07.2013 20:49, schrieb Bruno Wolff III: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 14:38:17 -0400, > Matthias Clasen wrote: > >> PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora >> infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really depressing >> state of affairs. Changing that wo

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Am 23.07.2013 20:57, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > On 07/23/2013 05:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: >>> And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long >>> term standing on our own two feets then >>> working wit

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:08:36 + "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/23/2013 07:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:08 + > > "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > >> On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >>> We have a increasing number of Fedora instances in pl

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/23/2013 07:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:08 + "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: We have a increasing number of Fedora instances in places where it makes sense. We don't exclusively use Fedora everywhere because it doesn't

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 21:02:56 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: on the other hand "it your own dogfoot" may lead to *a lot* of more Note, the English idiom is "Eat your own dog food". care in many aspects if it comes to desicisons like "delay a feature to the next release" which is not ready

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:08 + "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > We have a increasing number of Fedora instances in places where it > > makes sense. We don't exclusively use Fedora everywhere because it > > doesn't make sense for a number of thing

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 05:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long term standing on our own two feets then working with downstream or be dependant on RH on way or another or some other sp

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: We have a increasing number of Fedora instances in places where it makes sense. We don't exclusively use Fedora everywhere because it doesn't make sense for a number of things. Hosting/running what exactly? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedora

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:38:17 -0400 Matthias Clasen wrote: ...snip... > PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora > infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really > depressing state of affairs. Changing that would be a great goal, imo. I find this myth contin

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 14:38:17 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really depressing state of affairs. Changing that would be a great goal, imo. I think making sure a Fedora fo

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

I've found it very hard to find the right place to jump into this discussion. So, I'll just put out some of my own thoughts about what I want to see out of Fedora, and then point out how I think this matches or contrasts with Matts proposal. Fedora should be an *OS*. Here are some of the qualitie

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long > term standing on our own two feets then > working with downstream or be dependant on RH on way or another or some other > sponsor. > > So we are at impasse regard

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 05:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:51:43PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: If people are interested in stepping up to make this happen and have a long-term sustainable plan, that would be awesome. Come to think of it Red Hat itself is not willing to i

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Marcela Mašláňová píše v Út 23. 07. 2013 v 18:45 +0200: > On 07/23/2013 06:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > > Matthew Miller píše v Po 22. 07. 2013 v 09:38 -0400: > >>Conclusion > >>--- > >> > >>* Refocus Core to provide a better platform for building on > >>* Make room for innovation

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:51:43PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >If people are interested in stepping up to make this happen and have a > >long-term sustainable plan, that would be awesome. > Come to think of it Red Hat itself is not willing to invest in > extended release cycle of Fedor

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

- Original Message - > From: "Marcela Mašláňová" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:45:46 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock > talk) > > On 07/23/2013 06:07 PM,

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:54:27PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote: > > So far, so good...sort of. We can make the basic use case and tests work with > the modified dependencies but in doing so we risk giving up parity with the > Apache baseline (including the JRE) and potentially lose out to other

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please! I disagree with this "Proposal", but I would agree with that if you would call it "Goal" or "Vision". I agree with you that Fedora will (and should) look like this after 20 years. But that i

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/23/2013 06:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: Matthew Miller píše v Po 22. 07. 2013 v 09:38 -0400: Conclusion --- * Refocus Core to provide a better platform for building on * Make room for innovation at the "Ring 2" level * Empower SIGs to create solutions that fit * Won't br

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/23/2013 04:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: The proposal looks frankly very cloud-centric. Agreed the rings to rule them all proposal is a bit cloud centric and tries to address too many things at one time. I think we should just start with defining and reaching consensus on a small core

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

- Original Message - > From: "Robert Rati" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:01:33 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock > talk) > > I think there is another dat

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Matthew Miller píše v Po 22. 07. 2013 v 09:38 -0400: > Conclusion > --- > > * Refocus Core to provide a better platform for building on > * Make room for innovation at the "Ring 2" level > * Empower SIGs to create solutions that fit > * Won't break what we have > * And we can star

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:49:22AM -0400, Tim St Clair wrote: > +1 > > Trying to continually level set to the HEAD of Fedora has introduced patch > sets > which only continue to diverge over time. Upstream(s) have expressed > little/no > interest in accepting some of these patches, and I can h

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

: Shout out to my fellow Flocker, Matt... Original Message Subject: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:38:54 -0400 From: Matthew Miller Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora To: Fedora Develo

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 02:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: Not the current one no but if people are willing to maintain a longer release cycle there is nothing preventing them from doing so. The only thing is that it's _really hard_ an

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Not the current one no but if people are willing to maintain a > longer release cycle there is nothing preventing them from doing so. The only thing is that it's _really hard_ and almost certainly requires full-time workers

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/23/2013 02:36 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 07/22/2013 03:53 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote: But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases suitable for running servers! Says who? That is because Fedora has a 13 m

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/22/2013 03:53 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote: But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases suitable for running servers! Says who? That is because Fedora has a 13 month support policy https://fedoraproject.org/wik

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:58:10PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > In the end, making the pile of problems shrink requires working on the > pile of problems. That does not mean you can not deploy over multiple vms, > but if you take the fact you can deploy over multiple vms as an excuse not > to wo

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 15:10, Matthew Miller a écrit : > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:28:02PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> > With virt / cloud becoming easier.. is that not a common model? More >> > smaller machines which are dedicated to one and only one service? >> You can try to sweep problem

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

rom: "Peter MacKinnon" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:54:27 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock > talk) > Shout out to my fellow Flocker, Matt... > Original Message --

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:28:02PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > With virt / cloud becoming easier.. is that not a common model? More > > smaller machines which are dedicated to one and only one service? > You can try to sweep problems under lots of carpets, and pretend the > problem pile is sm

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 13:54, Bryan Kearney a écrit : > With virt / cloud becoming easier.. is that not a common model? More > smaller machines which are dedicated to one and only one service? You can try to sweep problems under lots of carpets, and pretend the problem pile is smaller since the

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/22/2013 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging guidelines today. As a sysadmin, I know why it's important. This is not just a noble goal, but also something that pragm

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:13:25PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote: > But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases > suitable for running servers! No one in their right mind runs any > rapid development distribution (not just Fedora) on critical > infrastructure. I'd like to qual

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 12:13 -0600, Eric Smith wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" > wrote: > > On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL *is* Fedora, it's > >> just a Fedora that's been hardened and held

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Shout out to my fellow Flocker, Matt... Original Message Subject: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:38:54 -0400 From: Matthew Miller Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora To: Fedora D

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:45:22AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > we need the policies to make this ring part of Fedora. So, a > > practical follow-up to this proposal would be a committee to design > > the policies for Ring 2 and how they work. > Sure. Of course you mean, design the policies and ge

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/22/2013 08:17 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Well, I did what you asked and I don't know what you are getting at. So I suppose either your instructions were unclear or you just wanted me to see that the FPC subpackage guidelines work as designed. So you installed a sub package ( or simply

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 22.07.2013 15:38, Matthew Miller wrote: > > I've been involved to some small degree with Fedora since the beginning. > This is a project and a Linux distribution which I love, and which I know > everyone reading this also cares about deeply. We don't want to break what > is successful and works.

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/22/2013 08:04 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said: On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: No one in their right mind runs any rapid development distribution (not just Fedora) on cri

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/22/2013 05:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:47:12PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >>> >>> On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: This was actually not the rationale. Th

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said: > On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" > > wrote: > >>On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>>They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL *is* Fedora, it's > >>>j

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/22/2013 07:59 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said: On 07/22/2013 06:52 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said: On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsso

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said: > On 07/22/2013 06:52 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > >Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said: > >>On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >>Should be made le

  1   2   >