Critical Path Packages Proposal
Define a "Critical Path" set of packages that require special care when updating in rawhide and releases.
Currently documented policies treat every package the same. While this is good for uniformity, in reality certain packages require and have been given extra attention and care when updating and testing. These packages have potential to break the critical path of use of our Fedora distribution.
Define a set of actions and their packages/deps to provide those actions that to define the "Critical Path". Packages within the "critical path" have extra requirements on getting tagged for freeze breaks and updates.
- Maintainers of packages within the Critical Path
- QA/Releng to provide extra attention to update/freeze requests for packages within the critical path
- Bodhi to handle extra requirements
- Tooling to define Critical Path each release
Bodhi is the most active ingredient here. It will have to handle blocking the update packages within the critical path until it gets the extra attention from QA/releng
What is the critical path of actions?
- graphical network install
- post-install booting
- decrypt encrypted filesystems
- get updates
- minimal buildroot
- compose new trees
- compose live
What teams provide the extra attention?
QA/Releng are good suggestions, however these groups will have to make clear how new members can join the groups and what the responsibilities are.
When and how to determine packages within the path
Because deps change, we'll have to regenerate the list of packages at certain intervals. Once per release may or may not be enough.
The current proposal is to add a package group to comps which lists the packages required to handle the critical use cases discussed above. Listing those packages and all their dependencies would yield a full list of Critical Path Packages.
skvidal's initial proposed package list can be found here: http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/critical-path-packages/
How can spins define their own critical path and keep track of changes within their path?
Maintainers who do not wish to maintain critical path packages
Will they be informed early enough to find alternative maintainers?
To leave a comment, use the Talk page for this proposal.