PROPOSAL: Core size reduction "bug day"

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:21:04 -0400, Toshio wrote:

> > I would say the goal here should be to make Extras as close to Core as
> > possible in the user-visible ways. The Core/Extras split has more to do
> > with who is doing the organization. The Fedora Project core team
> > (whatever that is - steering committee or whatever) manages the Core
> > release, tracks showstoppers, sets schedules, etc. etc.
> > 
> > The Extras releases on the other hand are done by other teams, the
> > example on http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/terminology.html
> > is a "Fedora Extras HPC" release, presumably there's a group of people
> > into HPC providing that.
> 
> Makes sense but seems to contradict what Warren has been saying is the
> eventual "status" of Extras.  What I get from reading Warren's postings
> is that fedora.us _is_ Extras but not officially.  This means one
> project which hosts a saner, more organized, higher quality
> contrib.redhat.com....  The idea I see expressed in terminology.html
> (and Michael Tiemann's post) is that Extras is a meta-project which
> encompasses numerous other (possibly overlapping) sub-projects to add
> (and subtract) from Fedora to make it more suitable for niche
> applications.

This is what I thought as well when reading his attachment, and the
thought of a reincarnation of Red Hat Contrib sent shivers down my
spine. But:

"Not conflicting with each other" and "100% consistent with Fedora Core"
does not allow any "overlapping".

For reference, let me quote from Mr. Tiemann's attachment:

    Fedora Extras: the maximal universe of packages that

	  * include all Fedora Core packages
	  * meet open source and legal requirements
	  * are 100% consistent with Fedora Core
	  * are 100% consistent (not conflicting) with each other
	  * preference for packages that are state-of-the-art
	  * preference for packages that have strong community support

--