On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:08 AM Stephen John Smoogen
<smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 09:43, Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:44 AM kevin <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Well, I think it satisfies all the use cases, but... we barely have
>> > enough cycles to try and revamp playground. Do we think we have enough
>> > to do that and also make a new -next version?
>> >
>>
>> Very good question.
>> Without being a superhero, do you and/or Smooge think we have the
>> resources to do this?
>> It's sounding like the answer is no.
>>
>
> Honestly, I don't see us having the resources to keep the playground around.
Kevin's doubts a long time ago about playground stretching resources too far were
correct. The build system is highly complex and just doing plain EPEL is a strain on the
Fedora volunteers. Adding the playground was an experiment and I would lean towards ending
it.
>
>
Sounds like you would like C)
C) Drop playground. Say it was an interesting experiment and we
learned stuff, but shut it down.
(and clean up the package.cfg files as part of shutting it down)
You, Kevin, and Mohan have been doing all the work. And anything we
decide, you all will end up doing all that work as well. So I think
totally fair that you get a huge say in what happens.
But if we do decide to drop playground, I don't want it to sound like
it's because of you.
The facts are that EPEL has been given very limited resources, barely
enough to keep normal EPEL operations running.
Adding epel-playground on top, has over-taxed our limited resources.
If epel-playground didn't require any extra upkeep, it might be ok.
And if we find a solution that doesn't require any extra upkeep, maybe
we can keep playground.
But adding anything else, like -next, is over the top. At a minimum
it will require extra resources every couple years to setup and take
down stuff. Those are resources we don't have.
I think playground might be fixable/made of use without too much work...
* adjust fedpkg to stop requesting playground branches always/only
request them on explicit ask
* change the inheritence in koji so it inherits from epel8
* untag all the things that are "older" in playground
* add more docs about what it is and how it works
* perhaps make it send a daily report for each compose
I suppose though that if we get those things in place, adding a
epel8-stream shouldn't be much work over that (aside mirroring stream
repos and adding them to koji).
I wish we could get some idea of the usage of things to know where best
to send our limited efforts. Are people using playground? Would they use
it more if it was smaller/just big changes packages?
Are there enough stream users to justify a epel repo built against it?
Would it be popular if there were?
I'm open on how to answer these questions, or I suppose we just guess as
best we can.
We could also decide to do something if we get the resources.
ie, don't set a time when something is done, say it depends on free time
of interested parties.
I suppose all that didn't help too much did it?
kevin