[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: [ELN] gcc is going to be updated to gcc11 in the ELN buildroot ahead of Rawhide
From:       Jonathan Wakely <jwakely () fedoraproject ! org>
Date:       2020-10-28 12:06:54
Message-ID: 20201028120654.GS503596 () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 23/10/20 13:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 1:07 PM Clement Verna <cverna@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 17:20, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 10/23/20 2:45 PM, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > > > Sorry, but you just need to accept the fact that some _early
> > > > development_ work in Fedora can happen without your decision on it.
> > > 
> > > I except (and accept) that most of the development work in Fedora happens
> > > without my decision on it.
> > > 
> > > I would like you on the other hand to accept that major changes in Fedora are
> > > coordinated trough the change process and ELN is part of Fedora.
> > 
> > 
> > This for me highlights the fact that our change process is not adapted to all \
> > parts of Fedora, in particular parts that need to move faster than the 6 month \
> > releases. I have in mind the Container base image, Fedora CoreOS and ELN, IMO \
> > these artefact depends more on the content (the set of packages included in them) \
> > rather then knowing which version of Fedora release they are based on. The \
> > Container base image and Fedora CoreOS are releasing every couple weeks, ELN is \
> > just a rolling release, I think it is unfair to ask to follow a change request \
> > system that is design for release that happen every 6 months. 
> > I think we either need a new change request system that is light enough to allow \
> > these group to iterate and make changes every week or so, or we need to trust the \
> > people involved in these groups to make the best decisions for the Fedora they \
> > care about and to also notify anyone that would be impacted by these changes. 
> 
> I think you're missing the point. When ELN was approved, the intent
> was to build Rawhide in a RHEL-ish configuration continuously. This
> particular plan defeats what ELN was communicated as because now
> there's a major deviation where people can't really participate and
> it's not much benefit for everyone else. Moreover, GCC 11 *will* land
> in Rawhide, so why not just push it there now? A Change proposal for
> GCC 11 still makes sense because it's *for* Fedora in the end too.

Dropping GCC 11 into rawhide now would mean I can't make certain
ABI-breaking changes to the C++20 library in upstream GCC, because it
would be landing on real users' machines. Which means I lose several
weeks of GCC's stage 1 development. No thanks.

The ELN team are willing to deal with the instability of GCC 11 while
in stage 1, I don't think the rest of Fedora and rawhide users are
willing, or should be expected to deal with it.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]