[CentOS-devel] CentOS Interoperability SIG

Wed Jan 29 15:39:14 UTC 2014
Clint Savage <herlo1 at gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Karanbir Singh <kbsingh at centos.org> wrote:

> On 01/28/2014 09:46 PM, Clint Savage wrote:
> > With these goals in mind, we'd like to formally request an
> > Interoperability Special Interest Group within the CentOS community.
> > Please let us know how to further proceed.
> Couple of comments here, consider the in abstract:
> 1) everything you mentioned here, we already do and will only increase
> scope of

Yep, and that is a good thing!

> 2) with the actual instance metadata in the public ( and on github! ) -
> there is very little cross-checking needed, since the result of the
> scripts is what gets published anyway ( and git log will history for
> anyone who cares ).

This sounds very open and grand. To this end, what is the harm in allowing
us to improve upon what you have? Seems like a SIG that audits processes
and documents things along the way could be even more valuable.

> 3) given the intention and direction for some of the points, duplicating
> effort also means diluting the single tooling effort - then at that
> point why would you not want to just contribute ( as people, not as
> projects ) into the common pool anyway ? ( ie. whats the justification
> for Goose to exist ? )

Let me give an actual example. Mathiew Bridon (bochecha) wrote a really
cool monitoring tool called uptrack[1]. This tool resides outside of the
CentOS community. The GoOSe project started to use this tool recently to
monitor build status. Additional features have already been discussed and I
have an intention of digging in and adding a few more. In my mind, this
project could be used across both projects. I'm not sure exactly how an
existing tool, uptrack, koji, mock, etc. would be considered part of the
CentOS project just because they are using the tools it provides. To that
end, we aren't necessarily duplicating certain efforts in writing tools
that would help many EL rebuild communities.

The value of a separate rebuild is not about duplicating effort. It's more
about using and improving the tools in a separate environment. I have found
that as a tool grows, it needs multiple contributors from different
environments to become full featured, more secure, etc. Having separate
communities contributing to CentOS in the form of a SIG seems like one way
to homogenize the effort, removing some of these opportunities for
improving tooling and the distribution itself.

> finally, not sure what makes this into a SIG, the content being
> addressed would be all in the public on git repos, so anyone can come
> along and 'help get better'.

Very true. It just seems a formalized effort would be better than no
effort. Don't you agree?

> - KB



1 - https://github.com/network-box/uptrack/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140129/8735d0a0/attachment-0005.html>