A Fedora RISC-V mailing list?

Project Discussion
1

Hey, folks —

We discussed this briefly on the Fedora Matrix chat. Let’s see if we can reach a rough consensus here :slight_smile:

Currently, most of the active work happens on the Fedora RISC-V Matrix channel, and some discussion here. While the Matrix channel is great for daily coordination, I wonder if a mailing list might be better for structured communication. (I’m already on many high-traffic lists, so I’m not eager for another.)

Pros:

  • With a mailing list, FTBFS (failed to build from source) or FTI (fails to install) notifications for RISC-V can all be in one place.
  • There’s a precedent—we have a Fedora ARM list; it’s not a “pro” per se, but a fact.
  • A mailing list makes it easier to Cc other lists when debugging Fedora-related bugs that intersect with with upstream projects.
  • In the future, Fedora blocker-bug review and other such announcements can also go out to a risc-v@ list too (currently, they go out to test@, devel@, arm@ and other lists.)

Cons:

  • Yet another list for those of us who already are on plenty of lists.
  • … ?

Alternatively, we could stick with the #risc-v-sig tag on discussion.fedoraproject.org and use the [risc-v] prefix on ‘fedora-devel’. Though the latter requires consistent use.

I slightly prefer a list, reserving the forum for free-form discussions.

Thoughts?

(Cc: @rjones @davidlt @kevin)

1 Like
2

Hey.

First, I’ll note that the council / @mattdm really want things to move here, and not add more lists. (For a variety of reasons).

Your points about lists advantages make sense tho. I wonder if we couldn’t figure a way to do those things here, but i am not sure what workflow would make sense for some of those things. In the end if we move off lists we are going to have to figure those out for everyone thought.

3

Hey.

First, I’ll note that the council / @mattdm really want things to move here, and not add more lists. (For a variety of reasons).

I see, I didn’t know that context.

Your points about lists advantages make sense tho. I wonder if we couldn’t figure a way to do those things here, but i am not sure what workflow would make sense for some of those things. In the end if we move off lists we are going to have to figure those out for everyone thought.

Yeah, I don’t know how feasible it is to “Cc” a Discourse forum to a
traditional list (and I suspect it’ll be frowned upon). But if Fedora’s
long-term goal is to move away from lists, then it’s indeed a bigger
topic that can’t be solved by a single SIG.

For now, I’m fine with sticking just to this forum, the Matrix channel,
and using ‘fedora-devel’ in an ad-hoc manner.

Somewhat related: not sure if you’ve come across this[1]. Konstantin
Ryabitsev, kernel.org’s administrator, shares his thoughts on why LKML
still prefers lists instead of a centralized Git forge. He talks about
single-point-of-failure, archival, a Benevolent Entity’s goodwill, etc.
(It’s not an exact comparison, but I feel they’re relevant points.)

Edit: I found some more Fedora-related context here[2].

[1] Re: On community influencing (was Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.) - Konstantin Ryabitsev

[2] Fedora-Council/tickets ticket #452 Proposal: Mailing list retirement plan

PS: Replying via email to see how it works.

4

Hey.

First, I’ll note that the council / @mattdm really want things to move here, and not add more lists. (For a variety of reasons).

I see, I didn’t know that context.

Your points about lists advantages make sense tho. I wonder if we couldn’t figure a way to do those things here, but i am not sure what workflow would make sense for some of those things. In the end if we move off lists we are going to have to figure those out for everyone thought.

Yeah, I don’t know how feasible it is to “Cc” a Discourse forum to a
traditional list (and I suspect it’ll be frowned upon). But if Fedora’s
long-term goal is to move away from lists, then it’s indeed a bigger
topic that can’t be solved by a single SIG.

yeah. You can send / cc things to discourse, but it needs to know what
tags to put on it. So if you had a generic thing it wouldn’t get any
tags. If we figure out a way to allow incoming emails to some address
that gives them some specific tag(s) it might work.

For now, I’m fine with sticking just to this forum, the Matrix channel,
and using ‘fedora-devel’ in an ad-hoc manner.

Yeah, I think thats best…

Somewhat related: not sure if you’ve come across this[1]. Konstantin
Ryabitsev, kernel.org’s administrator, shares his thoughts on why LKML
still prefers lists instead of a centralized Git forge. He talks about
single-point-of-failure, archival, a Benevolent Entity’s goodwill, etc.
(It’s not an exact comparision; but I feel they’re relevant points.)

[1] Re: On community influencing (was Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.) - Konstantin Ryabitsev

PS: Replying via email to see how it works.

yeah, I use email all the time for this. :wink:

Yeah… we don’t have that problem in fedora as much (we have moved long
ago to forges that we control), but I understand the issue.

I have wondered if something like public-inbox would be a better fit for
automated things (ie, the FTBFS emails, cc’s for blockers, etc).
But I haven’t had the cycles to look more closely.

5

[…]

Yeah, I don’t know how feasible it is to “Cc” a Discourse forum to a
traditional list (and I suspect it’ll be frowned upon). But if Fedora’s
long-term goal is to move away from lists, then it’s indeed a bigger
topic that can’t be solved by a single SIG.

yeah. You can send / cc things to discourse, but it needs to know what
tags to put on it. So if you had a generic thing it wouldn’t get any
tags. If we figure out a way to allow incoming emails to some address
that gives them some specific tag(s) it might work.

So in theory it should be possible, even if it’s a bit unwieldy.

For now, I’m fine with sticking just to this forum, the Matrix channel,
and using ‘fedora-devel’ in an ad-hoc manner.

Yeah, I think thats best…

Makes sense.

Somewhat related: not sure if you’ve come across this[1]. Konstantin
Ryabitsev, kernel.org’s administrator, shares his thoughts on why LKML
still prefers lists instead of a centralized Git forge. He talks about
single-point-of-failure, archival, a Benevolent Entity’s goodwill, etc.
(It’s not an exact comparision; but I feel they’re relevant points.)

[1] Re: On community influencing (was Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.) - Konstantin Ryabitsev

PS: Replying via email to see how it works.

yeah, I use email all the time for this. :wink:

It’s working well. Thanks to everyone who helped set it up! :slight_smile:

Yeah… we don’t have that problem in fedora as much (we have moved long
ago to forges that we control), but I understand the issue.

I have wondered if something like public-inbox would be a better fit for
automated things (ie, the FTBFS emails, cc’s for blockers, etc).
But I haven’t had the cycles to look more closely.

Yeah, the public-inbox idea is nice; I find lore.kernel.org very useful
(upstream QEMU also has its archives there). On cycles: I hear you, I’m
sure you have enough on your plate for the next 3 years :wink: