subject:"Re\: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 02/03/2014 11:06 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
 On 01/31/2014 12:28 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
 On 30 January 2014 23:07, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
 wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski 
 przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
 On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
 
 On 29 January 2014 23:58, Josh Boyer
 jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
 
 I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.
 I think they have value to people.  I think they fill a
 niche, however large or small it might be.  I also think they
 can be done by the people wishing to provide them without
 relying on Fedora resources for hosting and creation (outside
 of leveraging existing packages and repositories).
 
 I don't consider that getting rid of them at all.  On the
 contrary, I think it lets people have more control over their
 spins, allows them to refresh them as they see fit throughout
 the release, and allows them to market and promote them
 beyond a token mention on a Fedora website.
 
 Some care is needed, if there are things getting packaged to
 fill a role in a spin they may disappear from Fedora if the
 spin in question does.
 
 On one hand, I am impressed by many spins as an excellent
 technology demonstration. On the other hand, what should
 existing users of a base Fedora do if they find an useful
 spin with a superior functionality? If its function is not
 integrated and easily accessible from the base system,  they 
 must either dual-boot or re-install  from the spin.
 
 Therefore I prefer that the spins ultimate goal is to include
 the functionality into generic Fedora. The same goes for
 other bundling schemes discussed here.  It's not that I
 object to  them per se, but I do think that there's an
 opportunity cost involved: the person caring about the spin
 has to chose between working on integrating the spin
 functionality in generic Fedora, and developing the spin
 separately. I do recognize that the former is harder, but the
 opposite tack has a potential to fragment Fedora. Spins 
 should be like branches in a VCS: let's not turn them into
 forks.
 
 I think the strength of Fedora comes from it being an
 excellent platform for all kinds of FOSS software, and the
 associated network effect---the better the platform is, the
 faster it gets better.
 
 Spins is a loaded term in Fedora that means exactly what you 
 suggest.  An approved Spin, by definition, must only include
 packages (and functionality) that is contained in the generic
 Fedora repositories.  So the project seems to very much agree
 with you.
 
 Remixes can contain external packages and have the pluses and
 minuses that you highlight.  Some of the discussion to date has
 been suggesting or implying that Spins become Remixes, but
 I think that things that are already Spins would likely retain
 the qualities you desire.  The discussion has a lot of tribal
 knowledge behind it, so if you aren't overly familiar with the
 history behind these concepts I can see how it would be
 confusing.
 
 Indeed what Przemek Klosowski described (forking fedora) is what 
 making all spins remixes might do. Concrete example:  real-time
 audio. If left to its own devices a music production spin would
 probably do a realtime kernel and set priorites for jack on its
 own. However since whatever change was made had to apply to all
 fedora the result was that the default RT priority for jack was
 changed in the package (a realtime kernel not being necessarily
 required http://jackaudio.org/realtime_vs_realtime_kernel), so
 all Fedora JACK users get a better chosen default (though they
 still need to make manual changes to groups to benefit from it).
 
 
 I can certainly see the benefits of forking in the domain of
 audio.
 
 However I would also be a little concerned that maintainers of
 said spins, might just stop bothering to package new audio software
 in upstream Fedora repositories at all. If they are going to the
 trouble of of hosting there spins, I can't see why they wouldn't
 just host there own packages as well (with custom compiler flags
 and whatever).
 


This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins. Downstreams
are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for whatever
distribution they want to create. The catch is that they have to
follow the policies on this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix

The primary difference is that Fedora Remixes have to provide their
own website and image hosting, as they are Fedora-derived, not
Fedora-provided.

 I'd worry that this is going to result in a poorer quality audio 
 experience in Fedora (for example have those nice arch guys come
 along and provide patches to audio software that doesn't build).
 Who's going to do that on 3rd party repos?
 

The sort of person who does that in Fedora in the first place is
likely to do so for a Remix if they're using it as well.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment:

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
 
 Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
 
 I don't like the hardcoded three there at all, because if KDE is
 to ever become a full-fledged Product (which IMHO it should have
 been from the beginning!), it will need to change (unless you're
 dropping one of your 3 sacred spins).
 

Well, I thought it was clear, since I did include the words Right
now, but yes: I do think that other products should be both permitted
and planned. One thing I've been discussing as an option with some of
the members of the KDE SIG is to promote Fedora Scientific, based on
the present-day KDE and Scientific Spins, as a fourth Fedora Product.

I think this would be valuable as it would also act as a prototype for
what the new-product process will need to be going forward.

To address another concern you had elsewhere:
One of the stated goals of the Products is to provide a known and
reliable setup. I don't view it as reducing Freedom (or Choice)
because a clear goal of this effort is to ensure that if you don't
want this setup, you don't have to use it. You will be able to either
install one of the the Products (and later remove packages you don't
want) or you can install individual packages directly from the
netinstall.iso just as you have always done. So I really view this as
an add-on: if the *choice* a user wants to make is I'd like someone
who knows more than I do to make the decision about what I should have
installed, that's just as valid a choice as I want to use DNF
instead of YUM. It's just taking place at a higher level.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLwsTIACgkQeiVVYja6o6PjhgCgneEHSY6BHKprKxdul+Naw/FN
Z2gAoJf2kF1QEq8ixaEs4LvJLn6MROOR
=ai3m
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Dan Mashal

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
 This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins. Downstreams
 are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for whatever
 distribution they want to create. The catch is that they have to
 follow the policies on this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix

 The primary difference is that Fedora Remixes have to provide their
 own website and image hosting, as they are Fedora-derived, not
 Fedora-provided.

 The sort of person who does that in Fedora in the first place is
 likely to do so for a Remix if they're using it as well.

Hi,

So where do we currently stand with this?

Are we leaning towards spins going away?

Are we leaning towards keeping some spins and getting rid of others?

What about proposals for new spins?

Dan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:01:40AM +, Ian Malone wrote:
 Two thoughts:
 1. Is there scope for a spin to be a particular sub-focus of a product?
 Desktop (all)
 . desktop gnome
 . desktop kde
 . desktop twm (maybe not)
 Server (all)
 . server web
 . server fileserver (or whatever might make sense)
 The idea being that everything under one product should be a
 subdivision of what would be included anyway. I realise there's the
 potential there to snowball again.

It looks like the Cloud and Server WGs are both going this way, with Server
offering a base plus different roles (like your web and fileserver
examples), and Cloud offering a generic image plus several tailored for
specific uses (docker, big data, etc.). The Workstation WG is going in a
different direction, but I also think the situation is legitimately a bit
different, as the intention is for the server roles to have fundamentally
the same interface/experience, and it's likely that basic things like
cloud-init will remain in the different cloud... uh... spins.

-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread H . Guémar

I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.

I'd rather define a process that allows current spins to become either
sub-products or full-featured products
when they meet a set of requirements (that is to be defined yet).

In a contributor-driven community, it shouldn't be a problem to accept new
products if it is backed appropriately.


H.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 02/04/2014 11:11 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
 I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on
 products. That gives the message that they are second-class
 citizens in Fedora.
 

To be fair, spins have always been second-class citizens (to a point).
They've always been relegated to a secondary page from the standard
install media.

 I'd rather define a process that allows current spins to become
 either sub-products or full-featured products when they meet a set
 of requirements (that is to be defined yet).
 
 In a contributor-driven community, it shouldn't be a problem to
 accept new products if it is backed appropriately.
 

This I agree with completely. We need to define a process for how to
promote new Products. I *will* say that such a process will probably
include a requirement that it must be more than just a technology
deliverable (i.e. Just the XFCE Spin renamed). A product will likely
need to define a target not currently served by one of the existing
products (or the overlap will need to be justified).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLwwyUACgkQeiVVYja6o6NmsQCfTUCY2q3bUKON4vo+J1j9Qnqx
OboAnixXUmp0HGNqqwBtjVv1cth05B2d
=TxoF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 02/04/2014 10:34 AM, Dan Mashal wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher
 sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
 This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins.
 Downstreams are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for
 whatever distribution they want to create. The catch is that they
 have to follow the policies on this page:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix
 
 The primary difference is that Fedora Remixes have to provide
 their own website and image hosting, as they are Fedora-derived,
 not Fedora-provided.
 
 The sort of person who does that in Fedora in the first place is 
 likely to do so for a Remix if they're using it as well.
 
 Hi,
 
 So where do we currently stand with this?
 
 Are we leaning towards spins going away?
 
 Are we leaning towards keeping some spins and getting rid of
 others?
 
 What about proposals for new spins?


I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: Spins can
continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
secondary to our primary deliverables. (Yes, I'm aware of the
KDE-as-release-blocker rule and we'll address that individually).

So new spins and existing Spins are fine (in my opinion) as long as
someone is caring for and feeding them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLww5YACgkQeiVVYja6o6PtYACfUeW9oYycRD7n9b3+kc593KFu
gFoAni0WVryNnZp2M7WTioqYXudwFTp2
=GfMO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
 If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
 which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
 Product-based conception of Fedora?
 
 We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
 but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
 to quite work with the Product conception.

I would like to see Products defined by the problem space that they are
aimed at rather than the technology they're based on. That is, a Fedora
Scientific Desktop is a lot more compelling to me than Fedora KDE -- at
least as a product. But I don't think there's anything wrong with Fedora KDE
as either a spin or something else.

For that matter, there could be a Fedora GNOME spin distinct from the
Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about the
concerns of the Fedora Workstation WG's particular area of focus. (With
people keen to work on it as the really key phrase.)


-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Robert Mayr

2014-02-04 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1


 I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: Spins can
 continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
 secondary to our primary deliverables.
[snip]

Yes, in my eyes that's the reason why spins should not become a
separate product. They can/should be part of a product, such as
Workstation, and maybe only Security is worth a discussion apart.
How we will call the spins in fedora.ext is not important, but we
should have a clear idea soon about them.

Personally I wouldn't either keep any of them as release blocking
(except GNOME probably), only products should be able to block a
release.
Just my personal thought about this topic ;)

Cheers.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson



On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
Product-based conception of Fedora?

We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
to quite work with the Product conception.

I would like to see Products defined by the problem space that they are
aimed at rather than the technology they're based on. That is, a Fedora
Scientific Desktop is a lot more compelling to me than Fedora KDE -- at
least as a product. But I don't think there's anything wrong with Fedora KDE
as either a spin or something else.

For that matter, there could be a Fedora GNOME spin distinct from the
Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about the
concerns of the Fedora Workstation WG's particular area of focus. (With
people keen to work on it as the really key phrase.)




But you cannot overlap products as in you cannot have a Gnome 
workstation and KDE workstation etc you cannot have an Server 
product outside what is already defined in the ServerWG nor a Cloud 
product outside what is already defined there.


Basically what's happening here is that default is being applied to 
now three spaces which filled with Red Hat products and elevated above 
community contribution just like Gnome was put above all community 
contributions as an Default.


Do people truly really want us to move forward with this discrimination 
between contributions to the project?


JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
 What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
 Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
 think organizations like the Red Cross or Unicef would have a much better
 chance of getting the money.

This is certainly true, but the benefits to Red Hat also go far beyond the
immediate return on investment. And, many of those benefits simply do not
happen for Red Hat if the company does not _genuinely_ invest in community
support, including beyond current, obvious product connections. I know you
know that, but it doesn't come across clearly in your statements.

And, of course, for many Red Hatters, it's deeper than the cold financial
calculus. We care about this project and its values, and that's why we're
here.

-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Reindl Harald

Am 04.02.2014 11:57, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
 On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
 If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
 which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
 Product-based conception of Fedora?

 We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
 but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
 to quite work with the Product conception.
 I would like to see Products defined by the problem space that they are
 aimed at rather than the technology they're based on. That is, a Fedora
 Scientific Desktop is a lot more compelling to me than Fedora KDE -- at
 least as a product. But I don't think there's anything wrong with Fedora KDE
 as either a spin or something else.

 For that matter, there could be a Fedora GNOME spin distinct from the
 Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
 perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about the
 concerns of the Fedora Workstation WG's particular area of focus. (With
 people keen to work on it as the really key phrase.)
 
 But you cannot overlap products as in you cannot have a Gnome workstation 
 and KDE workstation etc you cannot
 have an Server product outside what is already defined in the ServerWG nor 
 a Cloud product outside what is
 already defined there.
 
 Basically what's happening here is that default is being applied to now 
 three spaces which filled with Red Hat
 products and elevated above community contribution just like Gnome was put 
 above all community contributions as an
 Default.
 
 Do people truly really want us to move forward with this discrimination 
 between contributions to the project?

honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and dedicate all
the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination discussions for 
documentations,
screenshots and howtos would have more benefit for Fedora

there is nothing you can't setup with the one fits all DVD or even with
a slim network install if you only knew what to install and how to configure



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread H . Guémar

It's also a negative message to the 1.4 k active contributors in fedora.
Or do you assume that most of them are paid by RH which is unlikely.
Don't forget that fp.o has been founded with two stakeholders: RH and the
community

H.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Dan Mashal

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
 I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: Spins can
 continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
 secondary to our primary deliverables. (Yes, I'm aware of the
 KDE-as-release-blocker rule and we'll address that individually).

 So new spins and existing Spins are fine (in my opinion) as long as
 someone is caring for and feeding them.

Thanks, that's good news.

Dan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Robert Mayr

2014-02-04 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org:
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
 What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
 Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
 think organizations like the Red Cross or Unicef would have a much better
 chance of getting the money.

 This is certainly true, but the benefits to Red Hat also go far beyond the
 immediate return on investment. And, many of those benefits simply do not
 happen for Red Hat if the company does not _genuinely_ invest in community
 support, including beyond current, obvious product connections. I know you
 know that, but it doesn't come across clearly in your statements.

 And, of course, for many Red Hatters, it's deeper than the cold financial
 calculus. We care about this project and its values, and that's why we're
 here.

 --
 Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org

Thank you Matt, I was very concerned about this statement indeed.
Haikel, you got the point of my thought too :)


-- 
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 For that matter, there could be a Fedora GNOME spin distinct from the
 Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
 perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about the
 concerns of the Fedora Workstation WG's particular area of focus. (With
 people keen to work on it as the really key phrase.)
 But you cannot overlap products as in you cannot have a Gnome
 workstation and KDE workstation etc you cannot have an Server
 product outside what is already defined in the ServerWG nor a
 Cloud product outside what is already defined there.

I think it's okay for there to be some overlap. The real world doesn't
always chop up into neat boxes. If there's a *lot* of overlap between two
nominally-different products, then that is less useful and it's probably
better for them to either work together or else find a stronger
differentiation.

But that's talking about products. As long as someone is interested in doing
them, spins can overlap like crazy.



-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson



On 02/04/2014 12:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:

For that matter, there could be a Fedora GNOME spin distinct from the
Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about the
concerns of the Fedora Workstation WG's particular area of focus. (With
people keen to work on it as the really key phrase.)

But you cannot overlap products as in you cannot have a Gnome
workstation and KDE workstation etc you cannot have an Server
product outside what is already defined in the ServerWG nor a
Cloud product outside what is already defined there.

I think it's okay for there to be some overlap. The real world doesn't
always chop up into neat boxes. If there's a *lot* of overlap between two
nominally-different products, then that is less useful and it's probably
better for them to either work together or else find a stronger
differentiation.

But that's talking about products. As long as someone is interested in doing
them, spins can overlap like crazy.


Yes but community products wont be considered primary products which 
means if things continues in the same manner as default does be 
ignored by QA/Releng/Marketing/Design since the focus will *only* be on 
primary products.


JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 01:34:09AM -0800, Dan Mashal wrote:
 So where do we currently stand with this?

So, here's what *I'm* thinking.

Spins clearly have enough popularity and importance that we either need to
keep them or have some alternative that fills the same space and makes
people at least as happy or happier. Since I don't know of any idea for
alternatives, we clearly should keep that.

Some spins might want to investigate alternative delivery methods. I'm
thinking particularly of the non-desktop-environment spins. Some of them
could maybe be delivered as groups of applications in Gnome Software
(although that's also clearly not appropriate for all), or maybe there's
interest in pushing the Fedora Formulas idea futher.

I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
okay to change software defaults in a way that isn't currently allowed.

I think some spins are completely fine staying as spins forever. Other
groups might be interested in becoming a Fedora capital-P Product. *I* don't
think we want more than a handful of these, but maybe it turns out that we
actually do collectively. So, for spins that are interested in targeting a
particular target space, there should be a process to get there.

Earlier I had suggested that I was thinking that this would parallel what
Fedora does with primary and secondary architectures, and that current spins
might all become secondary products. This discussion makes me think that
that's not quite right. Stanislav Ochotnický suggested that incubating
products might be better, in line with the Apache process:
https://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html (Although
we're structured somewhat differently from Apache, so we can't just lift
that wholesale). Not all spins would be interested in this (again, fine),
but the ones that are could have a clear path to follow.


-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:56:04PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 Yes but community products wont be considered primary products

No. The initial plan calls for three primary *community* products. And we'll
see where it goes from there.

 which means if things continues in the same manner as default does
 be ignored by QA/Releng/Marketing/Design since the focus will *only*
 be on primary products.

Focus, yes. Only, no. All of those groups help with existing spins to
some degree now, and I don't see any particular change there.

As I understand what you've said in earlier messages, I think you're
strongly in the camp that thinks Fedora is best as a big bag of building
blocks which we hand to users. Other people think that it would be best if
we glued the blocks together into predesigned shapes. I think we can do the
middle route, where we offer some pre-built structures but also keep the
blocks available. Or to switch metaphors to the way Colin Walters put it in
a message I read a few minutes ago , we *can* walk and chew gum at the same
time.

-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Miloslav Trmač

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.orgwrote:

 I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
 bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
 with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
 okay to change software defaults in a way that isn't currently allowed.

Is there a way that isn't currently allowed actually?  Spins can put
anything into %post, and some do modify configuration.  (If nothing else,
the desktop spins change the default desktop...)
Mirek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Jaroslav Reznik

- Original Message -
 On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller  mat...@fedoraproject.org 
 wrote:
 
 
 I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
 bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
 with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
 okay to change software defaults in a way that isn't currently allowed.
 Is there a way that isn't currently allowed actually? Spins can put
 anything into %post, and some do modify configuration. (If nothing else, the
 desktop spins change the default desktop...)

And sendmail/rsyslog was one example. So yes, spin already do so. But stating
this formally/documented way would be worthy.

Jaroslav

 Mirek
 
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
  I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
  bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
  combined with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it
  *would* be okay to change software defaults in a way that isn't
  currently allowed.
 Is there a way that isn't currently allowed actually?  Spins can put
 anything into %post, and some do modify configuration.  (If nothing else,
 the desktop spins change the default desktop...)

I don't know to what degree this is enforced, but
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Guidelines contains a big warning:

  Do NOT change the default behavior of applications. An example is to
  configure Nautilus to use the Browser mode by default. There may be
  valid reasons to change parts of the application, but you'll need to
  discuss them with the Spin SIG in your proposal.

Although that is only in the Live Spins section. Installation Spins says
No notes on Installation Spins yet (as it has for at least the last four
years). Not that I'm one to talk -- documenting stuff is hard. :)


-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Jaroslav Reznik

- Original Message -
 On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
   I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
   bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
   combined with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it
   *would* be okay to change software defaults in a way that isn't
   currently allowed.
  Is there a way that isn't currently allowed actually?  Spins can put
  anything into %post, and some do modify configuration.  (If nothing else,
  the desktop spins change the default desktop...)
 
 I don't know to what degree this is enforced, but
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Guidelines contains a big warning:
 
   Do NOT change the default behavior of applications. An example is to
   configure Nautilus to use the Browser mode by default. There may be
   valid reasons to change parts of the application, but you'll need to
   discuss them with the Spin SIG in your proposal.

Seems to be pretty outdated (*), we're past many things written there aka Live
CD size - for example for desktop and KDE spins. So the CD part could be 
removed,
I know several spins doing changes in defaults and it's really up to SIG 
standing behind spin than Spins SIG.

(*) last edit March 2011

 Although that is only in the Live Spins section. Installation Spins says
 No notes on Installation Spins yet (as it has for at least the last four
 years). Not that I'm one to talk -- documenting stuff is hard. :)

It needs updates :). Any volunteer?

Jaroslav

 
 
 --
 Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:48:12AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
  I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
  bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
  with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
  okay to change software defaults in a way that isn't currently allowed.
  Is there a way that isn't currently allowed actually? Spins can put
  anything into %post, and some do modify configuration. (If nothing else, the
  desktop spins change the default desktop...)
 And sendmail/rsyslog was one example. So yes, spin already do so. But stating
 this formally/documented way would be worthy.

That was a particularly gray area because it's simply a matter of installing
a package or not. Installing rsyslog but configuring it to log differently
than the standard is another level of change (although of course also murky
when other applications change their behavior based on the presence or
absence of some other package).

-- 
Matthew Miller--   Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Kevin Kofler

Robert Mayr wrote:
 Why do you think only about KDE?

The other desktops should be considered separate Products, too. It's time to 
stop treating them as second-class citizens that we won't even wait a few 
days for with our releases.

 This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war IMHO. The product for Desktop
 users should be just one, Workstation. And KDE, as Xfce or LXDE are part
 of this product and should live under the wing of the Workstation.

That way we either do no live images, or bad live images, with a menu filled 
with lots of applications that do the same thing, unless we start abusing 
Only/NotShowIn, which would suck for those people who do want to use e.g. 
Okular under GNOME.

I don't think a single image for all desktops is a good idea.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Rahul Sundaram

Hi


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:

 - Original Message -

 It needs updates :). Any volunteer?


I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now.  Ideally,
it needs a good rewrite

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Kevin Fenzi

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:09:15 -0500
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
 
  - Original Message -
 
  It needs updates :). Any volunteer?
 
 
 I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now.
 Ideally, it needs a good rewrite

Agreed. 

Also, mentions of steps involving a 'spins sig' when there's not one
thats at all active probibly need to be re-worked. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Przemek Klosowski


On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and 
dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination 
discussions for documentations, screenshots and howtos would have more 
benefit for Fedora there is nothing you can't setup with the one fits 
all DVD or even with a slim network install if you only knew what to 
install and how to configure


Right! since spins are just a fancy way to install groups, I would like 
the main install to offer them in a distinct 'I want to customize' 
installation step of the One True Fedora. That assumes that one can 
actually mix and match groups, even if they affect the fundamental 
layers such as the desktop environment. I haven't tried a combined 
Gnome/KDE installation recently, but I remember that it just offered an 
option to start a login session in either desktop environment.


An example of rampant customization is SUSE studio 
(http://susestudio.com/browse), and I am not at all impressed by it.  I 
am sure that there are some gems there but the pile of options is just 
overwhelming, and I think a better approach would be to have a solid 
base system with multiple customization recipes.


This would require careful definition of QA release requirements, to 
avoid combinatorial explosion in testing---but the current approach of 
testing the two basic desktop environments is fine and would still work.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Les Howell

On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
  Stephen Gallagher wrote:
  Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
  
  Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
  
  I don't like the hardcoded three there at all, because if KDE is
  to ever become a full-fledged Product (which IMHO it should have
  been from the beginning!), it will need to change (unless you're
  dropping one of your 3 sacred spins).
  
 
 Well, I thought it was clear, since I did include the words Right
 now, but yes: I do think that other products should be both permitted
 and planned. One thing I've been discussing as an option with some of
 the members of the KDE SIG is to promote Fedora Scientific, based on
 the present-day KDE and Scientific Spins, as a fourth Fedora Product.
 
 I think this would be valuable as it would also act as a prototype for
 what the new-product process will need to be going forward.
 
 To address another concern you had elsewhere:
 One of the stated goals of the Products is to provide a known and
 reliable setup. I don't view it as reducing Freedom (or Choice)
 because a clear goal of this effort is to ensure that if you don't
 want this setup, you don't have to use it. You will be able to either
 install one of the the Products (and later remove packages you don't
 want) or you can install individual packages directly from the
 netinstall.iso just as you have always done. So I really view this as
 an add-on: if the *choice* a user wants to make is I'd like someone
 who knows more than I do to make the decision about what I should have
 installed, that's just as valid a choice as I want to use DNF
 instead of YUM. It's just taking place at a higher level.
Very well said and I agree.  It takes a long time with some packages to
ensure that you have all the dependencies, supporting software (such as
Gschem, gnetlist, and ngspice, along with models, footprints, and
symbols) and useful utilities, such as snapshot, and Gerber viewers.
Moreover, while a user often knows what needs to be done, figuring out
which utilities work well with the application is something a new user
would not be equipped to handle.

Regards,
Les H


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Adam Williamson

On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
  Stephen Gallagher wrote:
  Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
  
  Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
  
  I don't like the hardcoded three there at all, because if KDE is
  to ever become a full-fledged Product (which IMHO it should have
  been from the beginning!), it will need to change (unless you're
  dropping one of your 3 sacred spins).
  
 
 Well, I thought it was clear, since I did include the words Right
 now, but yes: I do think that other products should be both permitted
 and planned. One thing I've been discussing as an option with some of
 the members of the KDE SIG is to promote Fedora Scientific, based on
 the present-day KDE and Scientific Spins, as a fourth Fedora Product.
 
 I think this would be valuable as it would also act as a prototype for
 what the new-product process will need to be going forward.

This still seems kind of bizarre to me. Scientific Workstation is a very
niche spin for a particular audience which happens to use the KDE
desktop because, I dunno, the person who built the spin had to pick
*some* desktop and they liked KDE more than GNOME or something. KDE is
our most significant desktop spin after GNOME.

If we're expanding the product set, Fedora KDE seems like a reasonable
Product candidate, but smooshing it together with Scientific Workstation
seems a bit bizarre.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Adam Williamson

On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:11 +0100, H. Guémar wrote:
 I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
 
 That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.

We already have about sixteen 'citizen classes' within the spin system,
as I pointed out in another mail. Exactly one spin is our default
deliverable. Exactly two spins block the release. Exactly six spins are
considered 'desktops' and given increased prominence on the download
page. Etc etc.

There is basically nowhere except https://spins.fedoraproject.org/ ,
which I don't think is a particularly high traffic page, that actually
treats all spins as equal.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-04 Thread Adam Williamson

On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:27 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
 On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
 
  honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and
  dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination
  discussions for documentations, screenshots and howtos would have
  more benefit for Fedora there is nothing you can't setup with the
  one fits all DVD or even with a slim network install if you only
  knew what to install and how to configure 
 
 Right! since spins are just a fancy way to install groups, I would
 like the main install to offer them in a distinct 'I want to
 customize' installation step of the One True Fedora. That assumes that
 one can actually mix and match groups, even if they affect the
 fundamental layers such as the desktop environment. I haven't tried a
 combined Gnome/KDE installation recently, but I remember that it just
 offered an option to start a login session in either desktop
 environment.

You can in fact do this at present, though it isn't heavily advertised
and I suspect was quietly snuck in by someone on the 'it's easier to
apologize than ask permission' principle ;)

If you choose the 'Basic Desktop' group on the left-hand side of
Software Selection, you'll see the 'subsidiary' group set on the
right-hand side includes all the major desktops, and you can pick as
many of them as you like. I think you don't get quite the same set of
package groups for each environment as you would if you picked its
dedicated environment group on the left hand side, but you should get
something that works at least.

This isn't particularly supported, by which I mean: we don't promote
or document it, QA doesn't do planned testing of it, and we wouldn't
block a release on it being broken. But AFAIK it usually works OK.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-03 Thread Brendan Jones


On 01/31/2014 12:28 PM, Ian Malone wrote:

On 30 January 2014 23:07, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:

On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrote:

On 29 January 2014 23:58, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:

I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.  I think
they have value to people.  I think they fill a niche, however large
or small it might be.  I also think they can be done by the people
wishing to provide them without relying on Fedora resources for
hosting and creation (outside of leveraging existing packages and
repositories).

I don't consider that getting rid of them at all.  On the contrary,
I think it lets people have more control over their spins, allows them
to refresh them as they see fit throughout the release, and allows
them to market and promote them beyond a token mention on a Fedora
website.

Some care is needed, if there are things getting packaged to fill a
role in a spin they may disappear from Fedora if the spin in question
does.

On one hand, I am impressed by many spins as an excellent technology
demonstration. On the other hand, what should existing users of a base
Fedora do if they find an useful spin with a superior functionality? If its
function is not integrated and easily accessible from the base system,  they
must either dual-boot or re-install  from the spin.

Therefore I prefer that the spins ultimate goal is to include the
functionality into generic Fedora. The same goes for  other bundling schemes
discussed here.  It's not that I object to  them per se, but I do think that
there's an opportunity cost involved: the person caring about the spin has
to chose between working on integrating the spin functionality in generic
Fedora, and developing the spin separately. I do recognize that the former
is harder, but the opposite tack has a potential to fragment Fedora. Spins
should be like branches in a VCS: let's not turn them into forks.

I think the strength of Fedora comes from it being an excellent platform for
all kinds of FOSS software, and the associated network effect---the better
the platform is, the faster it gets better.


Spins is a loaded term in Fedora that means exactly what you
suggest.  An approved Spin, by definition, must only include packages
(and functionality) that is contained in the generic Fedora
repositories.  So the project seems to very much agree with you.

Remixes can contain external packages and have the pluses and minuses
that you highlight.  Some of the discussion to date has been
suggesting or implying that Spins become Remixes, but I think that
things that are already Spins would likely retain the qualities you
desire.  The discussion has a lot of tribal knowledge behind it, so if
you aren't overly familiar with the history behind these concepts I
can see how it would be confusing.


Indeed what Przemek Klosowski described (forking fedora) is what
making all spins remixes might do. Concrete example:  real-time audio.
If left to its own devices a music production spin would probably do a
realtime kernel and set priorites for jack on its own. However since
whatever change was made had to apply to all fedora the result was
that the default RT priority for jack was changed in the package (a
realtime kernel not being necessarily required
http://jackaudio.org/realtime_vs_realtime_kernel), so all Fedora JACK
users get a better chosen default (though they still need to make
manual changes to groups to benefit from it).



I can certainly see the benefits of forking in the domain of audio.

However I would also be a little concerned that maintainers of said 
spins, might just stop bothering to package new audio software in 
upstream Fedora repositories at all. If they are going to the trouble of 
of hosting there spins, I can't see why they wouldn't just host there 
own packages as well (with custom compiler flags and whatever).


I'd worry that this is going to result in a poorer quality audio 
experience in Fedora (for example have those nice arch guys come along 
and provide patches to audio software that doesn't build). Who's going 
to do that on 3rd party repos?







--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Solomon Peachy

On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 I don't understand why we are doing that Fedora.NEXT thing in the 
 first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any 
 idea whether the output will be better than the status quo, or even 
 whether there will be any (usable) output at all!

For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the 
RHL4.1 days) I have to agree.  I've paid close attention to this ongoing 
saga, ad while the old development and governence model had its warts, 
it did seem to work consistently for Fedora's stated foundational 
goals (Freedom, Friends, Features, First)

So far the only tangible result is that the release date for F21 is 
delayed (which is probably a good thing) Everything else seems to be 
It's Fedora, just totally different and not Fedora any more. 

The main feature I've seen requested is an intermediate-cadence 
support cycle between RHEL/clones' 5-year and Fedora's 1ish-year, but 
nobody (especially not those asking for it) seems willing/able to do the 
work to provide that support on the (nontrivial!) distro-level scale.  
(I remember all too well the Fedora Legacy folks' pleading for help..)

A longer release cadence means we lose the 'First' goal (both in the 
First-to-market and Upstream-First sense), and the main beneficiary 
seems to be those who think the 'Freedom' goal only applies to 
themselves, not their downstream users.

Anyway.  I'll shut back up, but I would really hate to see Fedora's 
unique (and IMO successful) model get thrown out.  It really is a matter 
of principles.

 - Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL  ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.


pgpsADmbiyGYI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Chris Murphy


On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Solomon Peachy pi...@shaftnet.org wrote:

 On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 I don't understand why we are doing that Fedora.NEXT thing in the 
 first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any 
 idea whether the output will be better than the status quo, or even 
 whether there will be any (usable) output at all!
 
 For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the 
 RHL4.1 days) I have to agree. 


I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.

https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/31/good-morning-bugfixing-and-thinking-about-fedora-next/



Chris Murphy

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Solomon Peachy

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 11:26:06AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the
RHL4.1 days) I have to agree.

I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.

https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/31/good-morning-bugfixing-and-thinking-about-fedora-next/

Hmm. That's an interesting read, and for what it's worth I like the
position he advocates. It could be a great improvement over the current
'yum groupinstall' situation, depending on how some of the details are
worked out.

But looking at it from a 3rd party software perspective (F/OSS or
otherwise) it's barely an incremental improvement over the current
status quo -- While a third party will be able to rely on a minimal
package set being present (thereby eliminating a step in their
installer), they will still have to specifically target individual
Fedora [Product] releases and keep up with Fedora's release cadence as
well. (In other words, it's a negligable improvement without some
significant changes to Fedora's release and support models)

Anyway, time to resume hacking on Gutenprint.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp6G6WszQjTb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

Solomon Peachy wrote:
 So far the only tangible result is that the release date for F21 is
 delayed (which is probably a good thing)

It's not. As you say yourself:
 A longer release cadence means we lose the 'First' goal (both in the
 First-to-market and Upstream-First sense), and the main beneficiary
 seems to be those who think the 'Freedom' goal only applies to
 themselves, not their downstream users.
so we shouldn't delay our releases for no good reason.

 The main feature I've seen requested is an intermediate-cadence
 support cycle between RHEL/clones' 5-year and Fedora's 1ish-year, but
 nobody (especially not those asking for it) seems willing/able to do the
 work to provide that support on the (nontrivial!) distro-level scale.

Longer support must not happen at the expense of release frequency.

 (I remember all too well the Fedora Legacy folks' pleading for help..)

The reason Fedora Legacy failed was its unrealistic QA requirements on 
package updates, a disease that has since spread to Fedora as a whole. We 
could support our releases for much longer (WITHOUT reducing their 
frequency) if we just let maintainers push the security fixes without any 
bureaucracy. Right now, we even have trouble getting karma for the Fedora 
n-1 release that is still supported.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius


On 02/02/2014 07:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:


On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Solomon Peachy pi...@shaftnet.org wrote:


On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

I don't understand why we are doing that Fedora.NEXT thing in the
first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any
idea whether the output will be better than the status quo, or even
whether there will be any (usable) output at all!


For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the
RHL4.1 days) I have to agree.



I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.

Would you mind do summarize how you understand this in your own words?

To me this all reads as Fedora.Next is a marketing term for a 
predefined set of packages aiming at certain arbitrary predefined 
use-cases.


I regret, but I fail to find much sense in this.

Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

Chris Murphy wrote:
 I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.
 
 https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/31/good-morning-bugfixing-and-thinking-about-fedora-next/

Yikes, one more step away from flexibility and towards a proprietary one
size fits it all experience!? :-(

You're a developer and you want your users to have a certain set of packages
installed? Then you Require those packages! That's what RPMs are for! (And
yes, this implies that you're supposed to actually PACKAGE your software. Or
at least to let other people package it. People at certain third-party
repositories are willing to package stuff even from binary tarballs, if only
your license lets them! Heck, they even came up with hackish workarounds
such as LPF for when the license DOESN'T let them, but they really shouldn't
have to! But the right approach will always be to get your software INTO
Fedora, with source code and under Fedora-compatible licensing terms.)

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

Adam Williamson wrote:
 We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
 but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
 to quite work with the Product conception.

Why not?

I see only 2 acceptable outcomes, either KDE becomes a Product or the whole 
concept of Products gets dropped.

The KDE spin has always been a release-blocking deliverable, why should we 
get degraded to a second-class citizen?

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

PS:

I wrote:

 Adam Williamson wrote:
 The KDE spin has always been a release-blocking deliverable, why should we
 get degraded to a second-class citizen?

Sorry, poor choice of words there: The KDE spin has been a release-blocking 
deliverable for years. This hasn't ALWAYS been the case, in fact I do 
remember that we did have to fight for this achievement, but I really don't 
long back to the dark ages where we didn't have that status.

The goal should be to let ALL desktop spins get equal treatment (and equal 
with the GNOME spin no matter whether it's called Desktop Spin, 
Workstation Product or whatever silly marketing name), and in particular, 
release-blocking status, NOT to remove it from the KDE Spin.

Why does Fedora always have to give GNOME preferential treatment?

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Robert Mayr

2014-02-02 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
 Adam Williamson wrote:
 We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
 but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
 to quite work with the Product conception.

 Why not?

 I see only 2 acceptable outcomes, either KDE becomes a Product or the whole
 concept of Products gets dropped.

 The KDE spin has always been a release-blocking deliverable, why should we
 get degraded to a second-class citizen?

 Kevin Kofler

Why do you think only about KDE? This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war IMHO.
The product for Desktop users should be just one, Workstation. And
KDE, as Xfce or LXDE are part of this product and should live under
the wing of the Workstation. That's not a degration in my eyes, just
another array, and it's not constructive to have for every DE
environment a separate product. Fedora.next is not this, fedora.next
aims to have 3 main products for different use cases, there is no
reason to have a separate product for every single Spin unless we want
to go backwards again.

-- 
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Chris Murphy


On Feb 2, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:

 On 02/02/2014 07:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
 
 On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Solomon Peachy pi...@shaftnet.org wrote:
 
 On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 I don't understand why we are doing that Fedora.NEXT thing in the
 first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any
 idea whether the output will be better than the status quo, or even
 whether there will be any (usable) output at all!
 
 For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the
 RHL4.1 days) I have to agree.
 
 
 I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.
 Would you mind do summarize how you understand this in your own words?

 To me this all reads as Fedora.Next is a marketing term for a predefined 
 set of packages aiming at certain arbitrary predefined use-cases.

First, subjective and arbitrary are not the same thing, and considering 
Fedora.next being purely random and whimsical is hyperbole.

Therefore my understanding is different. What's been called hand waviness is 
the unavoidable subjective state of any new process. The flushing out and 
refinement of subjective goals into objective ones is what the Working Groups 
are doing. I also understand that while a high percentage of objectivity is 
desired and intended, even by Fedora 21 the process will still be maturing.

I can only imagine focus, instead of haphazard and the potential for truly 
arbitrary outcomes, occurs without any consideration of use cases. So I see 
pre-defined use cases as completely reasonable. Are they subjective? Sure. But 
we're not building a linux distribution for camels, so lets not pretend that we 
have unlimited resources, that Fedora is a chameleon and it can be all things 
to everyone simultaneously and still be high enough quality and relevance that 
people want to, you know, use it and get things done.


Chris Murphy

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius


On 02/02/2014 11:57 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:

2014-02-02 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:

Adam Williamson wrote:

We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
to quite work with the Product conception.


Why not?

I see only 2 acceptable outcomes, either KDE becomes a Product or the whole
concept of Products gets dropped.

The KDE spin has always been a release-blocking deliverable, why should we
get degraded to a second-class citizen?

 Kevin Kofler


Why do you think only about KDE? This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war IMHO.
The product for Desktop users should be just one, Workstation. And
KDE, as Xfce or LXDE are part of this product and should live under
the wing of the Workstation. That's not a degration in my eyes, just
another array, and it's not constructive to have for every DE
environment a separate product.


I do not think it's useful to split Fedora into any amount of products 
(I also have never considered the spins to be useful).


IMO, a Linux distro.is a construction kit, where _users_ should be 
able to choose to compose their own setup, not what some committee, 
secret cabal or WG thinks the user should choose.



Fedora.next is not this, fedora.next
aims to have 3 main products for different use cases, there is no
reason to have a separate product for every single Spin unless we want
to go backwards again.


Actually, I think Fedora is going backwards in time, ...

Ralf


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-02 Thread Chris Murphy


On Feb 2, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:

 On 02/02/2014 11:57 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
 2014-02-02 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
 Adam Williamson wrote:
 We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
 but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
 to quite work with the Product conception.
 
 Why not?
 
 I see only 2 acceptable outcomes, either KDE becomes a Product or the whole
 concept of Products gets dropped.
 
 The KDE spin has always been a release-blocking deliverable, why should we
 get degraded to a second-class citizen?
 
 Kevin Kofler
 
 Why do you think only about KDE? This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war 
 IMHO.
 The product for Desktop users should be just one, Workstation. And
 KDE, as Xfce or LXDE are part of this product and should live under
 the wing of the Workstation. That's not a degration in my eyes, just
 another array, and it's not constructive to have for every DE
 environment a separate product.
 
 I do not think it's useful to split Fedora into any amount of products (I 
 also have never considered the spins to be useful).
 
 IMO, a Linux distro.is a construction kit, where _users_ should be able to 
 choose to compose their own setup, not what some committee, secret cabal or 
 WG thinks the user should choose.

This makes no sense, either to describe Fedora.last or Fedora.next. I could 
pick any distribution and compose my own setup if I'm willing to work hard 
enough at it. But I want people, who I think actually know better than I do, to 
discover and define what best practices are or need to be matured; to make a 
clear bet on what technologies are nascent but have a good chance of being 
viable, and laying out a suggested path for implementation and future work. I 
consider that a proposal which I can take or leave. Even by constraining my 
choices, I gain by opting in. It's flawed logic that says more choice is 
inherently better. There's a reason why we  have concepts like focus, emphasis, 
prominence and triage. All things are not equal.


 Fedora.next is not this, fedora.next
 aims to have 3 main products for different use cases, there is no
 reason to have a separate product for every single Spin unless we want
 to go backwards again.
 
 Actually, I think Fedora is going backwards in time, …

If that's true, at least then it's not stuck in time, which would be decidedly 
worse. If it really is going backwards, this whole adventure will all the 
sooner reveal itself as the wrong direction. But I think it's a necessary 
process in eventually moving forward in any case.



Chris Murphy

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-01 Thread Kevin Kofler

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
 Until now, I am still unable to grasp the sense of Fedora.NEXT.
 All in all, to me all I've read so far sounds like being a lot of effort
 with undefined, unclear or questionable outcome.

Indeed.

I don't understand why we are doing that Fedora.NEXT thing in the first 
place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any idea whether 
the output will be better than the status quo, or even whether there will be 
any (usable) output at all!

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-01 Thread Kevin Kofler

Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
 
 Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.

I don't like the hardcoded three there at all, because if KDE is to ever 
become a full-fledged Product (which IMHO it should have been from the 
beginning!), it will need to change (unless you're dropping one of your 3 
sacred spins).

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-01 Thread Kevin Kofler

Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist?

Yes. Just see how many people do, indeed, use them.

 2) Should Spins be eliminated entirely in favor of Fedora Remixes[1].

No! HELL NO! Reducing Fedora to those 3 uninteresting Products would be a 
huge step backwards.

 3) Should Spins be considered Products-in-development? In other words,
 should we only approve Spins that are targeted or destined for
 promotion to a fully-supported Fedora Product?

Maybe. It all depends on what the expectations are for something to become a 
Product. IMHO, it should have no more expectations than we currently have 
for Spins (i.e. ALL Spins should automatically become Products), in which 
case the question becomes moot entirely. But seeing the kind of bureaucratic 
processes some people are expecting Products to go through, as long as those 
expectations remain, I think the answer to your question 3 can only be: No!

 3b) If we treat Spins as Products-in-development, what do we do with
 those Spins that don't fit that criteria?

See above, there shouldn't be any. Otherwise, the answer to the previous 
question must be no. In both cases, this question becomes moot.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Stephen Gallagher



 On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Les Howell hlhow...@pacbell.net wrote:
 
 On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 07:47 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
 
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com
 To: Development discussions related to Fedora 
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:25:10 PM
 Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
 
 - Original Message -
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make sure
 that this gets read by the appropriate groups.
 
 During today's FESCo meeting, there was the start of a discussion on
 how to approve new Products into the Fedora family. As part of this,
 it naturally strayed into discussion of what we do about Spins as they
 currently exist.
 
 Several ideas were raised (which I'll go through below), but we didn't
 feel that this was something that FESCo should answer on its own. We'd
 prefer community input on how to handle spins going forward.
 
 So, in no particular order (because it's difficult to say which
 questions are the most important):
 
 1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist? There are many problems
 that have been noted in the Spins process, most notably that it is
 very difficult to get a Spin approved and then has no ongoing
 maintenance requiring it to remain functional. We've had Spins at
 times go through entire Fedora release cycles without ever being
 functional.
 
 Spins are useful especially as they makes our community inclusive,
 one thing we should be proud about (and sometimes it was harder, could
 cause issues but everything is solvable).
 
 For spins quality - it differs, it will differ but recent changes to
 process were for good, more updates are still needed. Long time ago
 we released what was build, I like how big step we did last few years.
 It's not reason it wasn't functional before to ban spins.
 
 If there's interest in spins like product, someone is willing to lead
 this effort, I think in some way, it can stay.
 
 2) Should Spins be eliminated entirely in favor of Fedora Remixes[1].
 The effect here would be that Spins are no longer an official part of
 The Fedora Project but are instead projects unto themselves which are
 permitted to consume (possibly large) portions of our tools, packages
 and ecosystem. Maintenance and upkeep of these spins then becomes
 entirely the responsibility of the downstream community that
 constructs them and has no mandatory draw on Fedora's marketing,
 ambassadors or quality assurance resources.
 
 It's possible but much more resource hungry. The way how spins are set
 helps these sub-projects deliver interesting piece of software.
 
 But there are two questions:
 - does every single spin makes sense as standalone spin? I really liked
 the idea of Fedora Formulas, it's exactly the way we should go. If for
 some reason formulas would not be enough for desired use case - remix.
 
 aka products + add-ons as formulas = spin
 
 For people who missed it https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_formulas
 
 Well I think this idea is interesting and we have discussed something along 
 these
 lines in the Workstation working group. I mean at the end of the day we all 
 want as much 
 software as possible packaged for Fedora/Product. The question to me lies in 
 the details
 of how this is done. For instance the idea we hope to explore are we develop 
 the technical 
 specification for the workstation is what kind of rules should apply to 
 these potential
 'formulas'. There are some obvious ones like, you can't for instance in a 
 'formula' to  replace a package 
 that would break the core product for instance due to replacing a version of 
 a package with one that
 got a different ABI. (This specific idea is quite well covered in existing 
 Fedora guidelines, but I wanted to
 avoid derailing this discussion by choosing an example that I hope would 
 generate discussion in itself :)
 
 
 - or we could go even further and ask ourselves, do we want to call
 products Fedora? Or do we want products as remixes too? Based on
 underlying Fedora infrastructure? This could for example solve issues
 with our values - 3rd party repos etc.
 
 Using the Fedora brand to only define a set of 'white box' packagesets is an 
 option, 
 but in some sense it means the end of 'Fedora' as a user facing brand.
 
 3) Should Spins be considered Products-in-development? In other words,
 should we only approve Spins that are targeted or destined for
 promotion to a fully-supported Fedora Product? This is a nuanced
 question, as it means different things for different Spins, for
 example Spins focusing on a target-audience (Security Spin, Design
 Suite Spin) vs. Spins focusing on a technology (LXDE Spin, MATE-Compiz
 Spin).
 
 For target audience spins, see above Formulas. And once we have this,
 I think spins as we know them right now could go then.
 
 I'd like to avoid calling LXDE/MATE other

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:03:48 -0500 (EST)
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:

 What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at
 least some of the spins are not aware of this relationship to the
 larger Fedora ecosystem. This would indicate that the dropping or
 de-promoting the spins might lead the users of them to believe that
 the functionality they provided was removed from Fedora. While it is
 not a correct perception, it is nonetheless one that will occur (to
 some degree no matter how we advertise things) if some or all spins
 go away. It's a point that clearly merits consideration.

As long as audience is kept informed I think most thing will be fine,
But, I'm am a bit worried by some who are of the opinion if not Gnome,
then dump it. Without the option to install any pkg that may not have
the G word in it's name or origin.

Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.

If it ends up as not being the case, users may just want to
code or whatever, without having to fight current distro to do so.

It may be easier to boot: non-Fedora-livemedia/DE-of-choice.
Carry on with your workflow. 

I hope the future proves me wrong,
but I fear a too restrictive product,
may increase the (user-base) emigration, not halt it.

___
Regards,
Frank 
www.frankly3d.com

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Ian Malone

On 30 January 2014 23:07, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski
 przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
 On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrote:

 On 29 January 2014 23:58, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:

 I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.  I think
 they have value to people.  I think they fill a niche, however large
 or small it might be.  I also think they can be done by the people
 wishing to provide them without relying on Fedora resources for
 hosting and creation (outside of leveraging existing packages and
 repositories).

 I don't consider that getting rid of them at all.  On the contrary,
 I think it lets people have more control over their spins, allows them
 to refresh them as they see fit throughout the release, and allows
 them to market and promote them beyond a token mention on a Fedora
 website.

 Some care is needed, if there are things getting packaged to fill a
 role in a spin they may disappear from Fedora if the spin in question
 does.

 On one hand, I am impressed by many spins as an excellent technology
 demonstration. On the other hand, what should existing users of a base
 Fedora do if they find an useful spin with a superior functionality? If its
 function is not integrated and easily accessible from the base system,  they
 must either dual-boot or re-install  from the spin.

 Therefore I prefer that the spins ultimate goal is to include the
 functionality into generic Fedora. The same goes for  other bundling schemes
 discussed here.  It's not that I object to  them per se, but I do think that
 there's an opportunity cost involved: the person caring about the spin has
 to chose between working on integrating the spin functionality in generic
 Fedora, and developing the spin separately. I do recognize that the former
 is harder, but the opposite tack has a potential to fragment Fedora. Spins
 should be like branches in a VCS: let's not turn them into forks.

 I think the strength of Fedora comes from it being an excellent platform for
 all kinds of FOSS software, and the associated network effect---the better
 the platform is, the faster it gets better.

 Spins is a loaded term in Fedora that means exactly what you
 suggest.  An approved Spin, by definition, must only include packages
 (and functionality) that is contained in the generic Fedora
 repositories.  So the project seems to very much agree with you.

 Remixes can contain external packages and have the pluses and minuses
 that you highlight.  Some of the discussion to date has been
 suggesting or implying that Spins become Remixes, but I think that
 things that are already Spins would likely retain the qualities you
 desire.  The discussion has a lot of tribal knowledge behind it, so if
 you aren't overly familiar with the history behind these concepts I
 can see how it would be confusing.

Indeed what Przemek Klosowski described (forking fedora) is what
making all spins remixes might do. Concrete example:  real-time audio.
If left to its own devices a music production spin would probably do a
realtime kernel and set priorites for jack on its own. However since
whatever change was made had to apply to all fedora the result was
that the default RT priority for jack was changed in the package (a
realtime kernel not being necessarily required
http://jackaudio.org/realtime_vs_realtime_kernel), so all Fedora JACK
users get a better chosen default (though they still need to make
manual changes to groups to benefit from it).

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Matthias Clasen

On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 06:03 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 
 What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at least 
 some of the spins are not aware of this relationship to the larger Fedora 
 ecosystem. This would indicate that the dropping or de-promoting the spins 
 might lead the users of them to believe that the functionality they provided 
 was removed from Fedora. While it is not a correct perception, it is 
 nonetheless one that will occur (to some degree no matter how we advertise 
 things) if some or all spins go away. It's a point that clearly merits 
 consideration.

The spins concept splits the community into small fiefdoms and creates
unnecessary divisions.

I've seen mails on this list recently where people proudly stated that
they would continue to advertise one particular spin at conferences etc,
regardless what the official Fedora products are. If that is how we
advertise 'Fedora', it is not really a surprise that our users are
unclear about what it really is...

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Lukáš Tinkl


Dne 31.1.2014 14:20, Matthias Clasen napsal(a):

On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 06:03 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:


What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at least some of the 
spins are not aware of this relationship to the larger Fedora ecosystem. This would 
indicate that the dropping or de-promoting the spins might lead the users of 
them to believe that the functionality they provided was removed from Fedora. While it is 
not a correct perception, it is nonetheless one that will occur (to some degree no matter 
how we advertise things) if some or all spins go away. It's a point that clearly merits 
consideration.


The spins concept splits the community into small fiefdoms and creates
unnecessary divisions.

I've seen mails on this list recently where people proudly stated that
they would continue to advertise one particular spin at conferences etc,
regardless what the official Fedora products are. If that is how we
advertise 'Fedora', it is not really a surprise that our users are
unclear about what it really is...



Fedora isn't a Gnome OS, perhaps that's what they're trying to convey; 
making it one will most probably create less confusion but I'm sure it 
will also make us less relevant (my personal opinion).


--
Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com
Software Engineer - KDE desktop team, Brno
KDE developer lu...@kde.org
Red Hat Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:20:18 -0500
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:

 I've seen mails on this list recently where people proudly stated that
 they would continue to advertise one particular spin at conferences
 etc

The current product is not Gnome, it is Fedora.
And if asked about Xfce, which I solely use with Fedora. 
I will answer.


___
Regards,
Frank 
www.frankly3d.com

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:34:17 +0100
Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com wrote:

 Fedora isn't a Gnome OS, perhaps that's what they're trying to
 convey; making it one will most probably create less confusion but
 I'm sure it will also make us less relevant (my personal opinion).

Currently it's not, it is a default DE, no problem there.

___
Frank 
www.frankly3d.com

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Matthias Clasen

On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 14:34 +0100, Lukáš Tinkl wrote:

 Fedora isn't a Gnome OS, perhaps that's what they're trying to convey; 
 making it one will most probably create less confusion but I'm sure it 
 will also make us less relevant (my personal opinion).

Not sure why that was necessary, but I'll answer anyway:

I would be happy if Fedora moves towards being an OS, with a clear
separation between system and applications, and a clear definition of
what is part of the core system and what isn't. I don't think it makes
sense to discuss products if we don't agree on that as a necessity. 

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Colin Walters

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 
wrote:


I would be happy if Fedora moves towards being an OS,

Red Hat Enterprise Linux comes in both Server and Workstation variants, 
among others.  To continue to serve a useful role as upstream, I 
believe Fedora should be able to do *both* of these (and more).  It 
hurts our downstream if we completely lose the server or client polish, 
and one has to be retrofitted after the fact.


I think we *can* do both at the same time, while also not being a 
collection of packages.  We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same 
time.  To learn more about some technology I'm working on in that area, 
come to my devconf.cz talk =)



-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Adam Williamson

On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 11:22 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
 On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:03:48 -0500 (EST)
 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
 
  What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at
  least some of the spins are not aware of this relationship to the
  larger Fedora ecosystem. This would indicate that the dropping or
  de-promoting the spins might lead the users of them to believe that
  the functionality they provided was removed from Fedora. While it is
  not a correct perception, it is nonetheless one that will occur (to
  some degree no matter how we advertise things) if some or all spins
  go away. It's a point that clearly merits consideration.
 
 As long as audience is kept informed I think most thing will be fine,
 But, I'm am a bit worried by some who are of the opinion if not Gnome,
 then dump it. Without the option to install any pkg that may not have
 the G word in it's name or origin.
 
 Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
 groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.

I haven't seen any indication that anyone wants that to change as part
of .next. What we're currently discussing is basically a deliverables
question: what collections-of-packages-in-some-sort-of-lump do we want
to release, under what names and branding, with what level of support,
etc etc etc. But I haven't seen anything in even the most radical
proposals which involves dumping non-Product bits from the repos.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:53:17 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:

  Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
  groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.
 
 I haven't seen any indication that anyone wants that to change as part
 of .next. 

I do sincerely hope you are correct.


___
Regards,
Frank 
www.frankly3d.com

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Emmanuel Seyman

* Frank Murphy [31/01/2014 11:22] :

 Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
 groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.

I'm going to go in the opposite direction. The old anaconda installer made it
hard to see what groups you were installing and how you could install others.
The new anaconda is much better in this regard and the need for spins is
lessened, imho.

Emmanuel
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:50:59 +0100
Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr wrote:

 * Frank Murphy [31/01/2014 11:22] :
 
  Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
  groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.
 
 I'm going to go in the opposite direction. The old anaconda installer
 made it hard to see what groups you were installing and how you could
 install others. 

The point is will there be choice, and only time will tell.
Anaconda won't be used to select groups during Desktop.product install,
if I've been following correctly.  
It will install what's considered product that the WG decides upon.
Fully understand and accept that. 
There may not be a DVD available beyond .next for multiple choice.


___
Regards,
Frank 
www.frankly3d.com

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Adam Williamson

On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 15:30 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make sure
 that this gets read by the appropriate groups.
 
 During today's FESCo meeting, there was the start of a discussion on
 how to approve new Products into the Fedora family. As part of this,
 it naturally strayed into discussion of what we do about Spins as they
 currently exist.
 
 Several ideas were raised (which I'll go through below), but we didn't
 feel that this was something that FESCo should answer on its own. We'd
 prefer community input on how to handle spins going forward.
 
 So, in no particular order (because it's difficult to say which
 questions are the most important):
 
 1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist? There are many problems
 that have been noted in the Spins process, most notably that it is
 very difficult to get a Spin approved and then has no ongoing
 maintenance requiring it to remain functional. We've had Spins at
 times go through entire Fedora release cycles without ever being
 functional.
 
 2) Should Spins be eliminated entirely in favor of Fedora Remixes[1].
 The effect here would be that Spins are no longer an official part of
 The Fedora Project but are instead projects unto themselves which are
 permitted to consume (possibly large) portions of our tools, packages
 and ecosystem. Maintenance and upkeep of these spins then becomes
 entirely the responsibility of the downstream community that
 constructs them and has no mandatory draw on Fedora's marketing,
 ambassadors or quality assurance resources.
 
 3) Should Spins be considered Products-in-development? In other words,
 should we only approve Spins that are targeted or destined for
 promotion to a fully-supported Fedora Product? This is a nuanced
 question, as it means different things for different Spins, for
 example Spins focusing on a target-audience (Security Spin, Design
 Suite Spin) vs. Spins focusing on a technology (LXDE Spin, MATE-Compiz
 Spin).
 
 3b) If we treat Spins as Products-in-development, what do we do with
 those Spins that don't fit that criteria?

So in my new constructive spirit ;) let me take a crack at some answers
to this:

I think the Spins process as it currently exists has a lot of problems.
We've been saying this for years, long before we even thought about
Fedora.next. You identify some of them above, and there are others -
we've never had coherent messaging about the spins, for instance. This
is especially silly with the desktop spins, where there are all kinds of
mixed messages.

* Desktop is a spin, but it's also our default deliverable.
* KDE is a spin, and considered a release-blocking deliverable.
* Xfce, LXDE, MATE and SoaS are spins, aren't considered
release-blocking deliverables, but they *are* shipped in the same
directory as the Desktop and KDE spins on the mirrors (since F20), and
they're broken out and given special status on the download page as
Desktops - https://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora#desktops .
* Security Lab, Design Suite, Scientific-KDE and Electronics Lab aren't
shipped in the same directory as Desktop, KDE, LXDE, MATE and SoaS (the
directory they're in isn't carried by all mirrors, I don't think), and
they're not Desktops, but they're shown on a Spins tab on the download
page.
* All the other spins are spins, but they're not the default
deliverable, they don't block the release, they're shipped in the same
directory as Security Lab etc, but they're not shown directly on the
download page at all.
* https://spins.fedoraproject.org/ shows all the spins *except Desktop*
in a co-equal way.

There's an ad-hoc method to all this madness - there's a sort of ranking
system going on there that is intentional - but it's all been rather
thrown together as we've gone along and tweaked from release to release
with no great overarching plan.

So it's a good idea to look at the Spins space and see if there are
opportunities for improvement, almost regardless of the Products plan,
in fact (though obviously it is relevant to some questions here).

Despite the problems with the process, though, I think some of our
actual Spins manage to be excellent small-p products that provide good
solid value to the Fedora project and we should find a way to keep them
within the Fedora space even in a Product-ified world.

The desktop spins are the ones that seem most important to keep. I think
there's a reasonable argument for dropping most or all of the
non-desktop spins, because they're essentially just vehicles for
delivering package groups, when you look at them. Games provides a bunch
of games. Electronics Lab provides a bunch of electronics tools. There's
nothing particularly compelling about shipping these particular bundles
of packages as live images, or as images at all; we can come up with any
number of other mechanisms for letting people get at them, very
trivially. Hell, it's not particularly difficult to do it right now.

The desktop spins,

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Kevin Fenzi

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:37:02 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:

 So in my new constructive spirit ;) let me take a crack at some
 answers to this:
 
 I think the Spins process as it currently exists has a lot of
 problems. We've been saying this for years, long before we even
 thought about Fedora.next. You identify some of them above, and there
 are others - we've never had coherent messaging about the spins, for
 instance. This is especially silly with the desktop spins, where
 there are all kinds of mixed messages.

Yeah. I think things got somewhat better in f20 at least due to the
requirement that someone/anyone actually booted the thing and it
worked. 

...snip...

 The desktop spins are the ones that seem most important to keep. I
 think there's a reasonable argument for dropping most or all of the
 non-desktop spins, because they're essentially just vehicles for
 delivering package groups, when you look at them. Games provides a
 bunch of games. Electronics Lab provides a bunch of electronics
 tools. There's nothing particularly compelling about shipping these
 particular bundles of packages as live images, or as images at all;
 we can come up with any number of other mechanisms for letting people
 get at them, very trivially. Hell, it's not particularly difficult to
 do it right now.

I went down this same path a few years ago, but there are actually use
cases for the non desktop spins that aren't served by just installing
and then installing the packages. For example: 

* Using the security spin booted live to examine a compromised install.
  You don't want to attach it to a real install thats r/w. Booting off
  a read only media means if something messes it up, you can just
  reboot. 

* You have 30 machines in a lab you can use for your electronics lab or
  design class or gamer gathering. You're allowed to reboot them, but
  not install anything on them (they have windows on them or something).
  You can just walk around before class and boot them all up on live
  dvd/cd's. If someone messes up their setup in the class, they just
  reboot and get back to the desktop. 

Now perhaps these are cases where we just say: hey, make your own for
this, but they are valid use cases not easily handled by dropping those
spins. 

 The desktop spins, though, do have a reasonable amount of value to
 users of those desktops. People do use live media *just as live
 media*, and we know there are Fedora users who want to use desktops
 other than our default desktop, and Fedora contributors willing to do
 the work of maintaining and testing live image deliverables for those
 desktops. The desktop spins we have have mostly managed to meet
 reasonable quality expectations in recent releases without imposing a
 burden on the QA team. I just don't see any major problems to solve
 in the area of the existing desktop spins *as small-p products that
 are a part of the Fedora project*, though I certainly respect the
 releng team's statement that their work scales more or less linearly
 with the number of deliverables we decide to make a part of the
 Fedora space.

I'm not going to speak for releng, but IMHO... the items that are
somewhat a burden still with spins are: 

* Making sure someone tests and signs off at milestones. 
  (Perhaps this could be somehow automated?)
* The volume of things makes composes take longer. 
  (perhaps we could stop doing them as part of tc/rc composes, and just
  do them after each of those so they don't gate those?)
* websites folks have to look at what was signed off and adjust the
  websites for them.
  (Perhaps we could make some kind of more self service site for spins?)

 Even if we want to keep the alternative desktop live images as a part
 of the Fedora space, though, that affords us quite a bit of
 flexibility to change other things about this process.

Agreed. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-31 Thread Adam Williamson

On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 16:22 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

  The desktop spins are the ones that seem most important to keep. I
  think there's a reasonable argument for dropping most or all of the
  non-desktop spins, because they're essentially just vehicles for
  delivering package groups, when you look at them. Games provides a
  bunch of games. Electronics Lab provides a bunch of electronics
  tools. There's nothing particularly compelling about shipping these
  particular bundles of packages as live images, or as images at all;
  we can come up with any number of other mechanisms for letting people
  get at them, very trivially. Hell, it's not particularly difficult to
  do it right now.
 
 I went down this same path a few years ago, but there are actually use
 cases for the non desktop spins that aren't served by just installing
 and then installing the packages. For example: 
 
 * Using the security spin booted live to examine a compromised install.
   You don't want to attach it to a real install thats r/w. Booting off
   a read only media means if something messes it up, you can just
   reboot. 
 
 * You have 30 machines in a lab you can use for your electronics lab or
   design class or gamer gathering. You're allowed to reboot them, but
   not install anything on them (they have windows on them or something).
   You can just walk around before class and boot them all up on live
   dvd/cd's. If someone messes up their setup in the class, they just
   reboot and get back to the desktop. 
 
 Now perhaps these are cases where we just say: hey, make your own for
 this, but they are valid use cases not easily handled by dropping those
 spins. 

Thanks for the examples - I think you've given them before, and I've
forgotten them.

Yup: they're valid use cases, and they strengthen the argument for those
spins *as* spins. But indeed you can still make the case that there just
isn't enough value in doing it as part of Fedora, and viewed in the
context of these fairly 'niche' uses, the argument about making them
into remixes or something seems less alarming. I'm not sure I'd be
onboard with hiving off KDE, Xfce and Sugar as non-Fedora stuff (or
requiring them to become fully-fledged Products), but I can certainly
see saying 'look, if you want to take Fedora and build a security
forensics live image on top of it, that's awesome, but call it something
else and maintain it yourself' - I'm rather more on-board with that
argument *as applied to these somewhat niche cases* than just applied
to, you know, everything we currently cover with Spins. I'm not sure I
have a definite opinion on whether we need to / should do that or not,
but I know I wouldn't be incredibly sad/angry if it happened.

I do think there's some mileage in the argument that, if you go all the
back to the original Spins conception as this wide-open field to create
ANY PRODUCT YOU LIKE from Fedora bits and it'd be part of the Fedora
project in *some* form, that's probably biting off more than we can
realistically chew, especially given what releng has said about
resources. Right now we're kinda between two stools on that: Spins
didn't take off like wildfire and produce hundreds of awesome things
like maybe it was originally expected to, but it wasn't a complete and
utter dead loss either - so now we're in, I guess, a slightly weird
situation where we have this very heavyweight conception of Spins which
is maybe not providing us enough value to justify its weight.

If you want to take a market view of it, you can make the argument
that SUSE Studio is rather eating our lunch on the original Spins
concept:

http://susestudio.com/browse

zoiks. Kind of beats our 'well, first figure out the way livecd-creator
is duct taped together, then submit a kickstart file to this SIG thing
that barely exists any more, then...' process into a cocked hat.

snip last section - I think all your ideas there were sound
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Adam Williamson

On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 07:58 +, Frank Murphy wrote:

 If storage is the problem, cull all
 Fedora EOL 3+ year releases\rpms etc.

We already do this - old releases are moved to
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/ , where they're stored
differently and not mirrored. We kinda ought to keep copies of them
around *somewhere* for historical purposes, though, we can't really just
burn them down.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Frank Murphy

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:58:22 -0500
Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:

 I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.  I think
 they have value to people.  I think they fill a niche, however large
 or small it might be.  I also think they can be done by the people
 wishing to provide them without relying on Fedora resources for
 hosting and creation (outside of leveraging existing packages and
 repositories).

That doesn't sound right, 
logically below would also be true.
Gnome is a fairly big Spin,
and can eat up quite a lot of resources.
Maybe it should be outsourced.


___
Regards,
Frank 
www.frankly3d.com

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

The difference here is that the resources for GNOME (or anything else Red Hat 
needs for future versions of RHEL) are 
provided by Red Hat. So if you want the spins to the logically the same in 
terms of resources we should start demanding 
that any spin set up needs to provide an annual monetary contribution to help 
pay for the Fedora infrastructure and team.

Christian

- Original Message -
 From: Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com
 To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:06:24 AM
 Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
 
 On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:58:22 -0500
 Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
 
  I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.  I think
  they have value to people.  I think they fill a niche, however large
  or small it might be.  I also think they can be done by the people
  wishing to provide them without relying on Fedora resources for
  hosting and creation (outside of leveraging existing packages and
  repositories).
 
 That doesn't sound right,
 logically below would also be true.
 Gnome is a fairly big Spin,
 and can eat up quite a lot of resources.
 Maybe it should be outsourced.
 
 
 ___
 Regards,
 Frank
 www.frankly3d.com
 
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread piruthiviraj natarajan

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.comwrote:

 The difference here is that the resources for GNOME (or anything else Red
 Hat needs for future versions of RHEL) are
 provided by Red Hat. So if you want the spins to the logically the same in
 terms of resources we should start demanding
 that any spin set up needs to provide an annual monetary contribution to
 help pay for the Fedora infrastructure and team.


So you mean to say the software(already existing in the repos)  which is
not of interest for red hat should pay to stay for fedora infrastructure
and Team to stay in the fedora repos?

This looks like clear business motive and no point in calling it a
community project at all.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

- Original Message -
 From: piruthiviraj natarajan piruthivi...@gmail.com
 To: Development discussions related to Fedora 
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:45:51 AM
 Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Christian Schaller  cscha...@redhat.com 
 wrote:

 The difference here is that the resources for GNOME (or anything else Red Hat
 needs for future versions of RHEL) are
 provided by Red Hat. So if you want the spins to the logically the same in
 terms of resources we should start demanding
 that any spin set up needs to provide an annual monetary contribution to help
 pay for the Fedora infrastructure and team.

 So you mean to say the software(already existing in the repos) which is not
 of interest for red hat should pay to stay for fedora infrastructure and
 Team to stay in the fedora repos?

 This looks like clear business motive and no point in calling it a community
 project at all.

What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the Fedora 
community,
if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I think organizations like 
the Red Cross
or Unicef would have a much better chance of getting the money.

So if the Fedora community wants to not care about why Red Hat invests in 
Fedora they are of course free to do so,
but it becomes quite disingenuous to later be surprised if Red Hat loses 
interest in Fedora.

Christian
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Josh Boyer

On Jan 29, 2014 11:24 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:

 On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 18:17 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

 
  1) Disk space. Disks are not cheap in the world of data-access ready
  disks. The 4 TB SATAs sound nice but when you try serving FTP off them
  you find that you have to raid more than you did of the expensive SAS
  disks and your effective amount of disk space you can use is in the
  range of 1-10% of the disk space before you end up losing to speed of
  access, time to send, and general disk drive latency. After that you
  have to replace the disks quite often as they fail much sooner than
  any manufacturer says they will.
 
 
  2) Our disk space goal for mirrors is 1 TB of disk space for the main
  releases. That means N-1, N, and N+1 (alpha/beta/release).  We skim
  that and every iso, architecture, and extra makes it harder to keep.
 
 
  3) Net access. Large file sharing (500+ MB iso)  costs more than small
  file sharing (rpms). It takes up  'streams' for longer in modern
  routers/firewalls and thus you can fill up your pipe without
  saturating your pipe. This used to be gotten around via various file
  sharing mechanisms but these are increasingly getting shut down at the
  ISP and Universities for any content.
 
 
  4) Many mirrors skip the spins. That means the cost gets eaten up by
  those that do and then they run into the top issues above which makes
  it more likely they don't want to mirror them.
 
 
  These are costs that all the mirrors have to pay on this and those are
  things that are 'hidden' when people think 'oh we can make another
  spin, it only takes me an hour to spin it up and test it.'
 
 
  By the way, I am not anti-spin and consider the above costs to be
  things that can't be paid now or in the future.. I am just wanting
  people to realize that even beyond releng/qa resources this is not a
  'freebie'.

 Of course, another way of looking at this is to see that all these
 things are the work we would be downloading onto several disparate
 groups, who would almost certainly not be capable of doing it as well
 and efficiently as Fedora releng is, if we decided to wash our hands of
 spins.

 jwb has tried to characterize this as an 'opportunity' for spins, but I
 really don't think that washes. It's much more a case of us dumping a
 whole lot of extra work onto any who wants to maintain a spin:

 * Get a domain
 * Get a proper SSL cert for your domain
 * Figure out a build process - hack up some scripts which inevitably
 grow into a baroque horror? Deploy your own koji?
 * Figure out a QA process (we have provided a QA process for spins; this
 cost us - well, me, personally - a few hours I was happy to spend
 several releases ago, and it's in place and it works)
 * Cover the costs of hosting, or convince someone to distribute your
 bits
 * Do all your own marketing
 * Somehow try to make sure that tools like liveusb-creator include your
 bits

 I'm not sure I can imagine a spin maintainer who would be *happy* about
 all this.

Your other reply said there is no burden for spins.  Yet you list a bunch
of things you classify as a whole lot of extra work.  Including QA.  Using
lack of burden as a reason to keep it and extra burden as an excuse not to
have spin maintainers do the spins outside of Fedora doesn't wash either.

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Josh Boyer

On Jan 29, 2014 11:13 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:

 On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 16:33 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

   I'd rather not confuse what is made from Fedora bits with what is
   based on Fedora bits but includes other bits. The remix branding does
   not seem appropriate for spins that are made purely from Fedora bits.
 
  That's fair.  From a resource and quality perspective though, I'd
  rather not burden rel-eng and QA with having to maintain, create, and
  test spins.

 The 'burden' they create on QA is precisely zero, as we explicitly do
 not block releases on spins other than desktop and KDE. I don't believe
 releng considers the spins much of a burden, either - it's more just
 that they don't like building and pushing out stuff that no-one's even
 done a sanity check on. However, we have several high quality spins that
 people *do* care about and *do* test: at least the desktop spins, but I
 know for e.g. finalzone puts a lot of work into the design spin.

QA does no testing of spins at all?  If that's the case then I
misunderstood.  If QA does test, even if they don't block the release, it
takes time and effort.

 I think it's fairly presumptuous to suggest chucking all that stuff in
 favour of something that doesn't even *exist* yet.

I didn't suggest chucking.  I suggested moving the work to the people most
invested.  Chucking would be sorry you can use Fedora to make a different
spin and that would be bad indeed.

Also, even if Fedora.next dies, QA had talked about lack of time to tool
and automate in general.  If QA doesn't test spins today then you gain
nothing but if you do then that's at least some time back.

Spins are not free of cost.  You might find it to be of little cost but
there is still cost.

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Richard Hughes

On 30 January 2014 11:29, piruthiviraj natarajan piruthivi...@gmail.com wrote:
 ...doesn't bode well for the packages that is not of interest to red hat.

I think you're misinterpreting the words of Christian. Red Hat (also
my employer, but speaking for myself here) can't and shouldn't be pay
to fix and QA spins like LXDE or MATE. If keeping a MATE spin makes it
harder or slower for the people developing GNOME (which Red Hat should
sponsor) then I don't see the problem in his statement. Red Hat spends
a ton of money on Fedora, and I think a lot of the community seem to
forget that.

Richard
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Josh Boyer

On Jan 30, 2014 3:06 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:58:22 -0500
 Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:

  I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.  I think
  they have value to people.  I think they fill a niche, however large
  or small it might be.  I also think they can be done by the people
  wishing to provide them without relying on Fedora resources for
  hosting and creation (outside of leveraging existing packages and
  repositories).

 That doesn't sound right,
 logically below would also be true.
 Gnome is a fairly big Spin,
 and can eat up quite a lot of resources.
 Maybe it should be outsourced.

I'm going to assume you mean the Desktop spin here.  If the Fedora project
decided to use some other DE as the default offering, then sure there could
be a GNOME spin hosted elsewhere.

There's a difference between a spin and the primary thing the project ships.

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread piruthiviraj natarajan

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:


 I think you're misinterpreting the words of Christian. Red Hat (also
 my employer, but speaking for myself here) can't and shouldn't be pay
 to fix and QA spins like LXDE or MATE. If keeping a MATE spin makes it
 harder or slower for the people developing GNOME (which Red Hat should
 sponsor) then I don't see the problem in his statement. Red Hat spends
 a ton of money on Fedora, and I think a lot of the community seem to
 forget that.


The QA already doesn't have blockers for spins. As adam has mentioned spins
don't affect QA's work or progress at all.

I understand red hat spends a lot of money on fedora, but wielding the
spins away is definitely a bad rapport for the community and it in turn a
negative thing to participate for the project too.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

My statements was directly targeted at the often repeated attitude on this list 
which
seems to be that Red Hat should shut up and pay for whatever the given poster 
think should be payed
for without having any expectations or requirements of the Fedora community in 
return.

The relationship between Red Hat and Fedora is very different from that of for 
instance Debian and Ubuntu,
with Red Hat being a lot more directly involved in both contributing to Fedora 
and paying for the
general upkeep of Fedora. Personally I always felt that this symbiotic 
relationship was a big part of
what made Fedora interesting.

So in regards to the spins, which my original response didn't really try to 
address, I think they should all become remixes
and I think we should try to build an infrastructure where doing a remix is as 
easy as possible.
For example, in theory I think the Fedora project could provide some kind of 
web hosting space for the remixes, to reduce the burden/threshold
for remix maintainers, but I do also see that there are legal and 
administrative reasons for why that could be a bad idea, but I am sure that with
some discussion and investigation there are solutions that can be found to 
these practical challenges.


Christian


- Original Message -
 From: piruthiviraj natarajan piruthivi...@gmail.com
 To: Development discussions related to Fedora 
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:29:43 PM
 Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
 
 
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Christian Schaller  cscha...@redhat.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
 Fedora community,
 if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I think organizations
 like the Red Cross
 or Unicef would have a much better chance of getting the money.
 
 So if the Fedora community wants to not care about why Red Hat invests in
 Fedora they are of course free to do so,
 but it becomes quite disingenuous to later be surprised if Red Hat loses
 interest in Fedora.
 
 well this kind of strategy towards the community is not very inspiring for
 the new contributors, is it?
 I think there is interest in the fedora community for Gnome as well as other
 DE which RHEL doesn't ship.
 But since this thread has been moving in a direction where the Fedora spins
 are under threat to exist in the repos doesn't bode well for the packages
 that is not of interest to red hat.
 
 
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

- Original Message -
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make sure
 that this gets read by the appropriate groups.
 
 During today's FESCo meeting, there was the start of a discussion on
 how to approve new Products into the Fedora family. As part of this,
 it naturally strayed into discussion of what we do about Spins as they
 currently exist.
 
 Several ideas were raised (which I'll go through below), but we didn't
 feel that this was something that FESCo should answer on its own. We'd
 prefer community input on how to handle spins going forward.
 
 So, in no particular order (because it's difficult to say which
 questions are the most important):
 
 1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist? There are many problems
 that have been noted in the Spins process, most notably that it is
 very difficult to get a Spin approved and then has no ongoing
 maintenance requiring it to remain functional. We've had Spins at
 times go through entire Fedora release cycles without ever being
 functional.

Spins are useful especially as they makes our community inclusive,
one thing we should be proud about (and sometimes it was harder, could
cause issues but everything is solvable).

For spins quality - it differs, it will differ but recent changes to
process were for good, more updates are still needed. Long time ago
we released what was build, I like how big step we did last few years.
It's not reason it wasn't functional before to ban spins.

If there's interest in spins like product, someone is willing to lead
this effort, I think in some way, it can stay.

 2) Should Spins be eliminated entirely in favor of Fedora Remixes[1].
 The effect here would be that Spins are no longer an official part of
 The Fedora Project but are instead projects unto themselves which are
 permitted to consume (possibly large) portions of our tools, packages
 and ecosystem. Maintenance and upkeep of these spins then becomes
 entirely the responsibility of the downstream community that
 constructs them and has no mandatory draw on Fedora's marketing,
 ambassadors or quality assurance resources.

It's possible but much more resource hungry. The way how spins are set
helps these sub-projects deliver interesting piece of software.

But there are two questions:
- does every single spin makes sense as standalone spin? I really liked
the idea of Fedora Formulas, it's exactly the way we should go. If for
some reason formulas would not be enough for desired use case - remix.

aka products + add-ons as formulas = spin

For people who missed it https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_formulas

- or we could go even further and ask ourselves, do we want to call 
products Fedora? Or do we want products as remixes too? Based on
underlying Fedora infrastructure? This could for example solve issues
with our values - 3rd party repos etc.

 3) Should Spins be considered Products-in-development? In other words,
 should we only approve Spins that are targeted or destined for
 promotion to a fully-supported Fedora Product? This is a nuanced
 question, as it means different things for different Spins, for
 example Spins focusing on a target-audience (Security Spin, Design
 Suite Spin) vs. Spins focusing on a technology (LXDE Spin, MATE-Compiz
 Spin).

For target audience spins, see above Formulas. And once we have this,
I think spins as we know them right now could go then. 

I'd like to avoid calling LXDE/MATE other tech spins as products in
development but we would have to product categories

- Release blocking products
- Non release blocking products with limited support

And to promote other products to be release blocking, WG would have to
be formally established, team should prove sustainability, willingness
to work on it and have resources allocated (own resources or get agreement
from other teams on help, doesn't matter).

Keep it simple and stupid.

So my two cents are - revive Formulas (or now let's call it Stacks now?),
have two categories of products but make it fair to be promoted...

Jaroslav

 [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1
 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
 iEYEARECAAYFAlLpZMwACgkQeiVVYja6o6NOIwCeP6Kr6FGVYLCdU9Uofv7Xrqm1
 e3oAoIEky2/IjoGBF9MqVlEbkG0jd4vv
 =KDoO
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

- Original Message -
 My statements was directly targeted at the often repeated attitude on this
 list which
 seems to be that Red Hat should shut up and pay for whatever the given poster
 think should be payed
 for without having any expectations or requirements of the Fedora community
 in return.
 
 The relationship between Red Hat and Fedora is very different from that of
 for instance Debian and Ubuntu,
 with Red Hat being a lot more directly involved in both contributing to
 Fedora and paying for the
 general upkeep of Fedora. Personally I always felt that this symbiotic
 relationship was a big part of
 what made Fedora interesting.

+1 and I still think it works pretty well - Red Hat has a nice space to
do work on the future RHELs in open way (not like other so called open 
companies), community can contribute where there's interest.

Btw. I'm not saying there are no issues, or sometimes more misunderstandings
that always could be resolved.

 So in regards to the spins, which my original response didn't really try to
 address, I think they should all become remixes
 and I think we should try to build an infrastructure where doing a remix is
 as easy as possible.
 For example, in theory I think the Fedora project could provide some kind of
 web hosting space for the remixes, to reduce the burden/threshold
 for remix maintainers

And we call these spins now.

 , but I do also see that there are legal and
 administrative reasons for why that could be a bad idea, but I am sure that
 with
 some discussion and investigation there are solutions that can be found to
 these practical challenges.

That's one idea behind remixes - make it as easy as possible to remix Fedora
outside of Fedora space to avoid legal issues. 

Jaroslav

 
 Christian
 
 
 - Original Message -
  From: piruthiviraj natarajan piruthivi...@gmail.com
  To: Development discussions related to Fedora
  devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:29:43 PM
  Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
  
  
  On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Christian Schaller  cscha...@redhat.com 
  wrote:
  
  
  
  What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
  Fedora community,
  if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I think organizations
  like the Red Cross
  or Unicef would have a much better chance of getting the money.
  
  So if the Fedora community wants to not care about why Red Hat invests in
  Fedora they are of course free to do so,
  but it becomes quite disingenuous to later be surprised if Red Hat loses
  interest in Fedora.
  
  well this kind of strategy towards the community is not very inspiring for
  the new contributors, is it?
  I think there is interest in the fedora community for Gnome as well as
  other
  DE which RHEL doesn't ship.
  But since this thread has been moving in a direction where the Fedora spins
  are under threat to exist in the repos doesn't bode well for the packages
  that is not of interest to red hat.
  
  
  --
  devel mailing list
  devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Lukáš Tinkl


Dne 30.1.2014 13:08, Christian Schaller napsal(a):

My statements was directly targeted at the often repeated attitude on this list 
which
seems to be that Red Hat should shut up and pay for whatever the given poster 
think should be payed
for without having any expectations or requirements of the Fedora community in 
return.

The relationship between Red Hat and Fedora is very different from that of for 
instance Debian and Ubuntu,
with Red Hat being a lot more directly involved in both contributing to Fedora 
and paying for the
general upkeep of Fedora. Personally I always felt that this symbiotic 
relationship was a big part of
what made Fedora interesting.

So in regards to the spins, which my original response didn't really try to 
address, I think they should all become remixes
and I think we should try to build an infrastructure where doing a remix is as 
easy as possible.
For example, in theory I think the Fedora project could provide some kind of 
web hosting space for the remixes, to reduce the burden/threshold
for remix maintainers, but I do also see that there are legal and 
administrative reasons for why that could be a bad idea, but I am sure that with
some discussion and investigation there are solutions that can be found to 
these practical challenges.


Christian



I think dumping the spins is a very bad and dangerous idea for the whole 
Fedora/RHEL ecosystem. This will only drive the contributors away, and 
speaking of the KDE spin here, also a substantial user base.


--
Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com
Software Engineer - KDE desktop team, Brno
KDE developer lu...@kde.org
Red Hat Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread piruthiviraj natarajan

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:

 And we call these spins now.

  , but I do also see that there are legal and
  administrative reasons for why that could be a bad idea, but I am sure
 that
  with
  some discussion and investigation there are solutions that can be found
 to
  these practical challenges.

 That's one idea behind remixes - make it as easy as possible to remix
 Fedora
 outside of Fedora space to avoid legal issues.


Why is it a legal issue to have remix or spins in fedora space when they
are already shipping only free software?
I am not sure I really follow you here.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson



On 01/30/2014 12:08 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:

My statements was directly targeted at the often repeated attitude on this list 
which
seems to be that Red Hat should shut up and pay for whatever the given poster 
think should be payed
for without having any expectations or requirements of the Fedora community in 
return.


Care to reference to what you get at here in you futile attempt of 
damage control?


By all means point me to the post and the places where our community 
members are demanding anything from Red Hat.


JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

- Original Message -
 
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Jaroslav Reznik  jrez...@redhat.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 And we call these spins now.
 
  , but I do also see that there are legal and
  administrative reasons for why that could be a bad idea, but I am sure that
  with
  some discussion and investigation there are solutions that can be found to
  these practical challenges.
 
 That's one idea behind remixes - make it as easy as possible to remix Fedora
 outside of Fedora space to avoid legal issues.
 
 Why is it a legal issue to have remix or spins in fedora space when they are
 already shipping only free software?
 I am not sure I really follow you here.

Spins are ok but we want to make easy to remix Fedora outside if you don't
want to follow Fedora rules - bad content, even that different name could be
an issue... So we let people outside to deal with it, just we ask them to
be polite and say they are based on our amazing work.

Jaroslav

 
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

- Original Message -
 From: Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com
 To: Development discussions related to Fedora 
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:25:10 PM
 Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

 - Original Message -
  -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1

  Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make sure
  that this gets read by the appropriate groups.

  During today's FESCo meeting, there was the start of a discussion on
  how to approve new Products into the Fedora family. As part of this,
  it naturally strayed into discussion of what we do about Spins as they
  currently exist.

  Several ideas were raised (which I'll go through below), but we didn't
  feel that this was something that FESCo should answer on its own. We'd
  prefer community input on how to handle spins going forward.

  So, in no particular order (because it's difficult to say which
  questions are the most important):

  1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist? There are many problems
  that have been noted in the Spins process, most notably that it is
  very difficult to get a Spin approved and then has no ongoing
  maintenance requiring it to remain functional. We've had Spins at
  times go through entire Fedora release cycles without ever being
  functional.

 Spins are useful especially as they makes our community inclusive,
 one thing we should be proud about (and sometimes it was harder, could
 cause issues but everything is solvable).

 For spins quality - it differs, it will differ but recent changes to
 process were for good, more updates are still needed. Long time ago
 we released what was build, I like how big step we did last few years.
 It's not reason it wasn't functional before to ban spins.

 If there's interest in spins like product, someone is willing to lead
 this effort, I think in some way, it can stay.

  2) Should Spins be eliminated entirely in favor of Fedora Remixes[1].
  The effect here would be that Spins are no longer an official part of
  The Fedora Project but are instead projects unto themselves which are
  permitted to consume (possibly large) portions of our tools, packages
  and ecosystem. Maintenance and upkeep of these spins then becomes
  entirely the responsibility of the downstream community that
  constructs them and has no mandatory draw on Fedora's marketing,
  ambassadors or quality assurance resources.

 It's possible but much more resource hungry. The way how spins are set
 helps these sub-projects deliver interesting piece of software.

 But there are two questions:
 - does every single spin makes sense as standalone spin? I really liked
 the idea of Fedora Formulas, it's exactly the way we should go. If for
 some reason formulas would not be enough for desired use case - remix.

 aka products + add-ons as formulas = spin

 For people who missed it https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_formulas

Well I think this idea is interesting and we have discussed something along 
these
lines in the Workstation working group. I mean at the end of the day we all 
want as much 
software as possible packaged for Fedora/Product. The question to me lies in 
the details
of how this is done. For instance the idea we hope to explore are we develop 
the technical 
specification for the workstation is what kind of rules should apply to these 
potential
'formulas'. There are some obvious ones like, you can't for instance in a 
'formula' to  replace a package 
that would break the core product for instance due to replacing a version of a 
package with one that
got a different ABI. (This specific idea is quite well covered in existing 
Fedora guidelines, but I wanted to
avoid derailing this discussion by choosing an example that I hope would 
generate discussion in itself :)

 - or we could go even further and ask ourselves, do we want to call
 products Fedora? Or do we want products as remixes too? Based on
 underlying Fedora infrastructure? This could for example solve issues
 with our values - 3rd party repos etc.

Using the Fedora brand to only define a set of 'white box' packagesets is an 
option, 
but in some sense it means the end of 'Fedora' as a user facing brand.

  3) Should Spins be considered Products-in-development? In other words,
  should we only approve Spins that are targeted or destined for
  promotion to a fully-supported Fedora Product? This is a nuanced
  question, as it means different things for different Spins, for
  example Spins focusing on a target-audience (Security Spin, Design
  Suite Spin) vs. Spins focusing on a technology (LXDE Spin, MATE-Compiz
  Spin).

 For target audience spins, see above Formulas. And once we have this,
 I think spins as we know them right now could go then.

 I'd like to avoid calling LXDE/MATE other tech spins as products in
 development but we would have to product categories

 - Release blocking products
 - Non release

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

- Original Message -
 From: Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com
 To: Development discussions related to Fedora 
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:34:45 PM
 Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

 - Original Message -
  My statements was directly targeted at the often repeated attitude on this
  list which
  seems to be that Red Hat should shut up and pay for whatever the given
  poster
  think should be payed
  for without having any expectations or requirements of the Fedora community
  in return.

  The relationship between Red Hat and Fedora is very different from that of
  for instance Debian and Ubuntu,
  with Red Hat being a lot more directly involved in both contributing to
  Fedora and paying for the
  general upkeep of Fedora. Personally I always felt that this symbiotic
  relationship was a big part of
  what made Fedora interesting.

 +1 and I still think it works pretty well - Red Hat has a nice space to
 do work on the future RHELs in open way (not like other so called open
 companies), community can contribute where there's interest.

 Btw. I'm not saying there are no issues, or sometimes more misunderstandings
 that always could be resolved.

  So in regards to the spins, which my original response didn't really try to
  address, I think they should all become remixes
  and I think we should try to build an infrastructure where doing a remix is
  as easy as possible.
  For example, in theory I think the Fedora project could provide some kind
  of
  web hosting space for the remixes, to reduce the burden/threshold
  for remix maintainers

 And we call these spins now.

Not exactly, to be clear what I was talking about here was fedora providing
hosting for someone to point their 'SuperDuperLinux.org' domain to. So that the
remixes wouldn't need to find separate web hosting. But as I think you also 
refer
to in your response, if we do that then there are probably similar legal 
restrictions
put on the remixes as are currently put on the spins.

  , but I do also see that there are legal and
  administrative reasons for why that could be a bad idea, but I am sure that
  with
  some discussion and investigation there are solutions that can be found to
  these practical challenges.

 That's one idea behind remixes - make it as easy as possible to remix Fedora
 outside of Fedora space to avoid legal issues.

 Jaroslav

  Christian

  - Original Message -
   From: piruthiviraj natarajan piruthivi...@gmail.com
   To: Development discussions related to Fedora
   devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
   Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:29:43 PM
   Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

   On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Christian Schaller  cscha...@redhat.com

   wrote:

   What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
   Fedora community,
   if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I think organizations
   like the Red Cross
   or Unicef would have a much better chance of getting the money.

   So if the Fedora community wants to not care about why Red Hat invests in
   Fedora they are of course free to do so,
   but it becomes quite disingenuous to later be surprised if Red Hat loses
   interest in Fedora.

   well this kind of strategy towards the community is not very inspiring
   for
   the new contributors, is it?
   I think there is interest in the fedora community for Gnome as well as
   other
   DE which RHEL doesn't ship.
   But since this thread has been moving in a direction where the Fedora
   spins
   are under threat to exist in the repos doesn't bode well for the packages
   that is not of interest to red hat.

   --
   devel mailing list
   devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
   Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
  --
  devel mailing list
  devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

I can do better, I can provide you with one of these people to look at.
If you send me your postal address I will send you a mirror :)

Christian

- Original Message -
 From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
 To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:39:11 PM
 Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

 On 01/30/2014 12:08 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:
  My statements was directly targeted at the often repeated attitude on this
  list which
  seems to be that Red Hat should shut up and pay for whatever the given
  poster think should be payed
  for without having any expectations or requirements of the Fedora community
  in return.

 Care to reference to what you get at here in you futile attempt of
 damage control?

 By all means point me to the post and the places where our community
 members are demanding anything from Red Hat.

 JBG
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-01-30 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson



On 01/30/2014 12:57 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:

I can do better, I can provide you with one of these people to look at.
If you send me your postal address I will send you a mirror:)


Oh a funny man after this insult put up and point me to those post or 
shut up.


JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins