On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:12:12PM +0100, Honza Horak wrote:
"If its going to be part of fedora in any shape or form
it has to be built in koji ... it allows releng to control shipping,
signing and delivery, it allows updates to go through bodhi ... it
gives a central place for people to look at fedora builds"
This kind of comes to a semantic distinction about what exactly
"Fedora" means and includes. We use the term to refer to both the
project as a whole, and the distribution that is our major output.
In cases like this, though, we should be more clear. Copr is _already_
part of the Fedora Project officially, in a very real shape and form.
However, packages built in Copr aren't part of the Fedora OS
distribution — at least not as we have now.
I also would like to step a bit back from making our rules tied to a
specific piece of named technology — that is, rather than saying "in
order to be officially in the distro, it needs to go through koji", say
"needs an open, trackable workflow which has qualities x, y, and z".
I think these are valid points but to me it still seems like we may
still work with that. It would just mean non-koji-Rings wouldn't be
considered "official fedora", which seems similar to less-strict
rules and thus lesser quality expectations.
I think we can also draw finer distinctions here — some things in "ring
3" can be "recommended by Fedora" or "reviewed by Fedora", while
can be missing that sticker.
Fedora Project Leader