On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Jon <jdisnard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> -----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.
[snip]
>
> 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.
>
Putting on my rel-eng hat I can say that any spin that fails to
compose will be dropped.
I believe we also encourage or even require the spin maintainers to
test their spin as functional.
(To work out if the spin succeeds to compose but fails to actually work)
The idea is to encourage active spin process, inactive spins will auto
retire by policy if they fail.
Another aspect I worry about is the mirroring stuff.
With the coming WGs I fear the rsync mirroring will grow very large,
and spins are an attractive piece of fat to cut.
You probably didn't mean for that to sound so negative but a piece of
fat to cut is how rel-eng thinks of spins?
I recall being assured at the beginning that some interested company
was willing to provide the necessary support for us to give this a
fair try.
Reducing size is something we worry about on the infra, rel-eng side
of things.
That is pragmatic but be a dreamer while dreaming is in style. Give
worrying about how to increase the capacity of infra a try instead.
John