On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:32 PM Miro HronĨok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
...
>> For the stated reasons I am *-1 for this change in its
current form*.
>
> That is your privilege as a member of FESCo. As I've said, however, I
> think you've misunderstood the situation.
Do you want to leave it at "this is your privilege" or would you rather try to
lower the level misunderstanding? In other words, do you think it is still worth
it to have this conversation?
I do think it is still worth it. I suspect that in some places we are
just talking past one another. It's possible that we would be able to
get a majority vote in FESCo, but I would much prefer if we could get
to *consensus* instead. I'm trying to incorporate suggestions, but
some of them (like requiring ELN to be a completely separate branch of
dist-git) interferes with our intended goals. And (though I haven't
been able to communicate this well, I fear) we really do intend for
conditionals to be uncommon (and ELN-specific conditionals limited to
places where it is absolutely necessary). I think using the
"pre-generated documentation" example was probably a bad one, because
that's a case that implies a much wider scope than intended. Or at the
least, I should have described it better from the beginning. What I
think is most likely is that we'd look into adding %{bcond_with docs}
in more places in Fedora (and default to that being false in ELN).
Then, later in the RHEL process we could introduce such pre-generated
docs as a downstream-only change after we break inheritance from
Fedora.
If we went that route (not just for docs, but as a model for
conditionals in general), would that address some of your
reservations?
>> As said on the mailing list, I'd appreciate if you take
the feedback provided by
>> the packagers more seriously and adjust the proposal accordingly.
>
> I have read and responded to the feedback as best I know how. Please
> do not confuse "I disagree and here are my reasons" with not listening
> to the feedback.
I've asked you to take it more seriously, I was not accusing you for not
listening to it. I guess what I meant to say is "give the people who provided
the feedback some benefit of a doubt and some merit and work with them to
understand their concerns better" -- but I realize there will always be some
level of disagreement.
There will be, but I really am trying to identify the problems and
find common ground. As I said above, I think I'm probably
misunderstanding what you're advocating for rather than ignoring it.
> Lastly, I don't know if you reread the latest updates (that
I made
> around three hours ago to the Change Proposal), but I *did*
> acknowledge that we are going to incorporate the possibility of
> maintaining separate specs for ELN and Rawhide for any maintainer who
> absolutely wants to do more manual work. The exact mechanism is going
> to at least partly depend on the results of the dist-git forge move,
> so I haven't incorporated that into the proposal. Functionally, it
> will be very similar to maintaining a separate branch, though.
Well, sadly I had not, because I was writing that thing for more than 3 hours
trying to not sound like a demanding passive aggressive naysayer :(
Email is hard. I understand.
If I had reread the latest version, my reply would be different.
(Although there
are far too many open questions in this ML thread, I won't be changing my vote
to +1 yet, you can consider my -1 withdrawn for now.)
Thank You for adding that \o/ -- this is precisely what I meant by "taking the
feedback more seriously".
I appreciate that.
I could imagine this latest addition incorporated into the proposal
better,
would you like to "meet" and discuss that?
I'll see if I can find some time ahead of the FESCo meeting to talk
with you tomorrow. I think it's definitely worth talking it over.