Hi, sorry for being a bit late to the discussion.
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Adding repos definitely should not be taken lightly. Frankly, if 2 is > really something worth doing, then perhaps also the (overly?) stringent > policies need rethinking. The initial idea for the Playground repository came up as a frequently encountered need for something between the current Fedora's main repository and the COPRs. The former is comprised of very high-quality peer-review packages adhering to the Packaging Guidelines and the latter are just user-contributed RPMs which have almost no restrictions (besides being buildable by Copr and complying with the Fedora Licensing guidelines), so they could be of very high quality, very low quality or anything in between. I think this Change brings some cool new opportunities, where Fedora can research some new concepts and innovate: 1) This will be the first more generally-targeted repository that will came out entirely from Copr so we'll be able to see how Copr handles that. 2) Packages destined to the Playground repository will go through automatic testing/gating to ensure that they are up to some basic level of quality. As the tests will be automatic, they could also be repeated on every package update to provide some sort of continuous integration at the package level. If this proves to be successful, we could look at porting this to the main repository. 3) After the Playground sets off and we learn the process of spinning another repository, we could look at creating Playground++, a more stable Ring 2 repository around the main repository. 4) This could also spur some new thoughts on the current Packaging Guidelines and review process (e.g. Which parts are too strict? Which parts take the longest?), and as a consequence, help in improving it. Tadej -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
