"What is the Fedora Project?"

Josh Boyer jwboyer at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 13:21:12 UTC 2009

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:11:18AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:18:48PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> >On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >> >5) By F15 I'd like to see a killer virtualization management system in
>> >> >Fedora.  What we have now is a lot of disparate tools.  All of which are
>> >> >getting better, none of which are on the level with the likes of vmware.
>> >>
>> >> OK, confused.  2, 3, and 5 seem to have nothing to do with Fedora itself.
>> >> Additionally, 5 here seems to be based on the assumption that the Fedora
>> >> project is a development organization or that we control development
>> >> resources that we can direct.  I don't think either is true.  I think Fedora
>> >> is a _showcase_ for development that happens elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >
>> >yet 2, 3, and 5 have all been hackfests or discussion points at the last
>> >two fudcons I've attended.  Also, that's kind of my point.  They don't
>> >have much to do with Fedora at the moment.  But I'd like to see us do
>> >them.  Just like NM typically gets its changes here first.  We can through
>> >resources and help at upstream projects more for even better relationships
>> >with upstream.  This is just doing more of what we are already good at.
>> NM is showcased here first.  I'm pretty sure all the NM changes are still
>> going into upstream before they actually show up in a Fedora RPM.
>But that's not to say it's not tightly coupled with Fedora.  When there's
>a NM problem, people go in #fedora-devel and ping Dan Williams.  When
>there's a problem with yum they do the same thing to Seth.  There are
>several other examples.  It's because Fedora is where a great deal of this
>type of development is happening.  This extremely low barrier to upstream
>is what I'm talking about.  Fedorahosted makes this even easier.

I'll concede that point.

>> >> Now, I'm well aware of the fact that Red Hat (and other companies) pay
>> >> people to work "on Fedora".  However I think the actual development is done
>> >> in the upstream projects and Fedora just happens to be the test/delivery
>> >> vehicle for that work.  The Fedora project also doesn't dictate what those
>> >> developers do.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Something I want to see changed.  I'd like to have facilities to do this
>> >more in Fedora.  We're starting to have this stuff like we didn't before.
>> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by any of that.  What exactly do
>> you want to see changed?  What facilities would you like to have?  What are
>> we starting to have more of?
>Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead)
>Looking for additional resources to do X or Y.  I'd like to start
>providing that.  This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as
>well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do
>reporting back for various information.

I see.  I was more focusing on the 'we can't dictate what developers do' part,
while you were focusing on making it easier for upstream to do what they want.
That's fine.


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list