[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Stupid question



> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> FC3 -> RHEL4.
>>
>> FC6 -> RHEL5.
>>
>> Presumably, F9 -> RHEL6.
>>
>> With me so far?
>
> [Not speaking for Red Hat here. Just my understanding of the process]
>
> The RHEL 6 time schedule isn't that strict and RHEL release schedules
> are not public information and probably won't be till close to release.

So I assumed.

>> How is maintainership handled when RHEL is based on a Merged (WRT
>> Core/Extras) Fedora?  Pre-merge, Core->RHEL and is maintained by RH
>> folk,
>> and Extras->EPEL, and is maintained by the community.  Post-merge, there
>> are lots of packages maintained or co-maintained by community folks that
>> are either historically Core or might be considered so in the process of
>> choosing packages for RHEL6.
>>
>> Let's say a package was brought into Fedora and is maintained by a
>> non-RH
>> person, and RH wants to put it in RHEL6.  Who maintains it?  The current
>> maintainer or someone in RH?
>
> Anything in RHEL has to be maintained by a Red Hat employee. Usually,
> the same maintainer who will maintain it for RHEL will also
> maintain/co-maintain the Fedora branch too to get continous visibility
> into the development. When Red Hat branches off from Fedora to RHEL,
> product management will find someone to own the RHEL branch regardless
> of how it is managed in Fedora.

So if, say, I maintain a package that goes into RHEL, I can expect a new
co-maintainer?

> What about EPEL?  Presumably not an EPEL
>> candidate then?
>
> If it is pulled into RHEL, it is not a EPEL candidate.

Perfectly logical. So if it's already in EL-4 and EL-5, we just don't
branch for EL-6.  I get it.

> Rahul
>


-- 
novus ordo absurdum


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]