On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Colin Walters <walters(a)verbum.org> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> Fully agree that making rel-eng monitor this stuff makes no sense and
> doesn't scale. We need to find a better solution, and I think some
> real project management approach makes sense as one alternative.
I keep circling back to the concept of a staging rel-eng space.
Certainly before any deliverable is being proposed, some functional
prototype of how it's built in a reliable fashion is feature complete. Then
after that the Change is "promoting" it to be a defined reliable
updated bit.
Let's take the Vagrant box as a concrete example. Someone
who was joining from outside could very reasonably propose
using Packer:
https://www.packer.io/intro/getting-started/vagrant.html
to make a Fedora vagrant box.
They say "Hey Vagrant is popular enough to be official, let's get
this in rel-eng staging". So some resources are provisioned to
do this, they get a little bit of space to manage the release.
Then later, a Change is made for this to be official. At that
point someone from rel-eng looks and would say things like
"Hey this Packer thing completely duplicates the ImageFactory
work that's already in Koji, can you rework to use that? And
kickstart files, etc."
I think this may actually be the direction we've been discussing since
Adam joined -- modulo waiting until we're that far along to get input.
;-) I don't think we want to wait for some formal Change to get the
rel-eng community to look at the approach. But we want a safe (from
production interference) place to prototype stuff. Right now the
"staging" we have is broken. So the critical path is to fix it up, and
see how we need to extend it to accommodate more experimentation.
--
Paul