Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-17 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:19:53AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > >> Service Level: 6 months (effective SL: 3 months/EOL: 2017-11-08 due > >> to dependency on openSSL) > > > > Ouch. Yes, but I think that that should be a warning sent to the module > > maintainers (and collectively to devel list)

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-17 Thread Adam Miller
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:38:15AM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: >> >Yeah, that would get crazy fast. The 6 month granularity proposal >> >should help*some*, and we should probably go into this carefully. >> >>

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-08 Thread Matthew Miller
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +, Langdon White wrote: > I guess I am not sure how this is different with modules than with Fedora > today. We promise a 13 month lifecycle on openssl (and everything else) > already. I think the difference here is only that the "position" is > explicit.

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-08 Thread Matthew Miller
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:38:15AM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > >Yeah, that would get crazy fast. The 6 month granularity proposal > >should help*some*, and we should probably go into this carefully. > > Technically, the SL for the module could have the narrow meaning > referring to the

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-08 Thread Matthew Miller
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 02:13:38PM -, Ralph Bean wrote: > Thanks for starting this. I'm not aware of a ticket or a responsible > party at this point. +1 to working towards formalizing this. I'll make one if no one else has. Should we start at a rel-eng ticket, get a proposal worked out, and

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-08 Thread Przemek Klosowski
On 08/07/2017 03:58 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:10:23PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I still don't see how this is going to work with a tree of Service Levels and Lifetimes. Any module can not give a SL greater than the lowest SL and the shortest lifetime that any

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-08 Thread Ralph Bean
> Is there an active plan on figuring out these Service Levels? Is there > a ticket? Is there a specific person who owns this? I think we need at > least a preliminary understanding of what goes here for the F27 beta > (freeze on Sept. 9th, so... I guess by then?) Thanks for starting this. I'm

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-07 Thread Langdon White
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:59 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:10:23PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > I still don't see how this is going to work with a tree of Service Levels > > and Lifetimes. Any module can not give a SL greater than the

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-07 Thread Matthew Miller
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:10:23PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I still don't see how this is going to work with a tree of Service Levels > and Lifetimes. Any module can not give a SL greater than the lowest SL and > the shortest lifetime that any package in it is going to agree to. [EG if

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-07 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 7 August 2017 at 07:50, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:38:44AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > That way, users and admins aren't treated to an explosion of arbitrary > > > days where action is needed to stay on a current stream. Instead, they > > >

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-07 Thread Matthew Miller
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:38:44AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > That way, users and admins aren't treated to an explosion of arbitrary > > days where action is needed to stay on a current stream. Instead, they > > can plan for annual upgrades as we do now. (I also expect the > > "platform" module

Re: [Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-07 Thread Josh Boyer
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > I'm looking at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Module:Guidelines#SLs_and_EOLs > > While not a part of the modulemd specification yet, modules will > eventually carry a Service Level (SL) value and an

[Modularity]: Service levels and EOL expectations?

2017-08-05 Thread Matthew Miller
I'm looking at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Module:Guidelines#SLs_and_EOLs While not a part of the modulemd specification yet, modules will eventually carry a Service Level (SL) value and an End of Life (EOL) value. The work in Changes/ArbitraryBranching will enable