Matthew Miller (mattdm@fedoraproject.org) said:
- depending on the focus between "ugly" vs. "incubation" or "staging" as a name, the implication would be that these are packages which are _striving_ to be part of the commons ("Fedora Collection"?) but aren't ready yet, whereas some other things might live in COPRs forever and have no intention of ever playing nice.
So, from a user perspective, what does this buy us? If (for example) the only reason it's not in the main repo is that it has bundled libs, what are we accomplishing by making the user have an extra checkbox?
Well there are many packages (either with submitted reviews or not) that take a very long time to get into Fedora because of the review process. Good examples might be javascript (*cough* jquery cough;), but personally there are also loads of Haskell libraries I would like to put into Fedora but am not able to also due to the limited review manpower (Fedora Haskell lags behind Debian and Ubuntu because of this).
IOW, why not just restrict the super strict guidelines to the core product repos of Fedora, and have this repo be for things outside of that, which can include things that follow the guidelines, and things like chef that don't.
I am not following the implication/difference, you mean to build out from Core (koji and current infrastructure) rather than inwards from the outside (copr etc)? That could also be a reasonable approach - particularly for Commons. There are certainly good arguments for re-using current infrastructure where possible while keeping the new repo accessible.
Certainly I have questions about the new repo: will packages be in git? tracked by bugzilla? Can packages be pulled from the repo: either by the maintainer or because of breakage say? How to distinguish packages?
Is "Ugly" also a part of Ring 2 btw?
BTW Honza Horak suggested the name Playground in the E&S Meeting, which I rather like.
Jens