there is no clear sense of the details of each
ring.. e.g. definition, type of things in the ring, loose
guidelines, users' expectations, motivation to use the rings(hhorak,
12:18:13)
IDEA: ring2 may be
split into ring 2 and ring 3 - the new ring 2 should contain only
system high-level stacks (we'll always need system versions of e.g.
interpreted langauges) and ring 3 should contain copr/playground and
possibly also upstream-type of repos(hhorak,
12:18:17)
ring 0 is a minimal bootable system - basically
the domain of the Base WG(hhorak,
12:33:37)
IDEA: question is what
can be moved out of ring 1 to ring 2?(hhorak,
12:40:13)
IDEA: the "promotion"
idea.. as in ... the lower the number of ring the higher quality of
the package and the more it must be maintained(hhorak,
12:40:13)
IDEA: definition of
ring 1 is a minimal set of packages that give you a functional
system, with some sort of approval(hhorak,
13:31:21)
IDEA: ring 1 should be
self-hosted -- because you want to build very solid important
packages using very solid important packages(hhorak,
13:31:21)
IDEA: WG-wkstn may want
to package httpd differently than WG-server -- that could be solved
on configuration - level like httpd-dev and httpd-prod(hhorak,
13:31:21)
IDEA: then ring 2
includes clean/good pkgs of other stuff; ring 3 good pkgs but not
complete; ring 4 any old stuff(hhorak,
13:32:31)
IDEA: topic for ML or
some of the next meetings: setting some technical expectations about
how to differ ring 0, 1, 2..(hhorak,
13:40:44)
IDEA: topic for ML or
some of the next meetings: look more closely on users' wok-flow --
say he wants to develop or use some app from ring X -- what it
actually means in practice..(hhorak,
13:40:44)