Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
>>>>> "gregor" == gregor herrmann <email@example.com> writes:
gregor> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with
>> proposal C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying
>> to figure out if there are any practical differences. Understand
>> this is not a criticism of this proposal, but if there are no
>> significant practical differences I am enclined to withdraw
>> Proposal C.
gregor> Without having thought this through, I have a gut feeling
gregor> that you could withdraw all of your original proposals,
gregor> because we now have 3 clear proposals, worded by the
gregor> respective proponents, for the 3 general directions:
gregor> Dmitry's pro multiple init systems variant, Ian's compromise
gregor> proposal, and now tbm's clear pro systemd text.
Proposal B is not a compromise proposal in the same direction as Ian's.
Proposal B is a lot closer to proposal C/F than anything Ian would
Proposal B is targeted at a different kind of compromise.
One that I heard under the subtext of people I was talking to who were
not involved enough that they were going to write their own text.
People who are skeptical of systemd, but who believe it is superior to
the other existing init systems.
The big difference between proposal B and F/C is that proposal B
obligates gatekeepers like the release team to think about the issues
involved in integrating technologies that might provide alternatives to
systemd. It says that as a project we'll work with people to run
experiments at a global level, but does not commit individual
maintainers to support these experiments.
Under proposals C/F, the project level gatekeepers probably wouldn't
cooperate with such experiments.
Under all three systemd options (B/C/F), individual packages are not
obligated to support alternate init systems.