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

Re: Testing -> stable?

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 26.08.2007 17:35, Mike McGrath wrote:
There's been a lot of conversations about the testing -> stable process on this list, on IRC and just in general chats. Can someone explain what the current consensus is? I have branding concerns.

I'd really like to see something that is more updated than stable without being "testing". An additional level
seems sufficient.

 * if there is a strong need to move a package it is allowed according
to the policy. But for the other updates I think we manage EPEL similar
to how RHEL does it: non-crucial updates go into a quarterly update and
no major updates if there isn't a reasons for them. Just "latest and
greatest" is IMHO not the reason
How do you determine which bugfixes are "serious enough"? ... it seems like the package maintainers usually would be the best qualified to make this decision if there is a bit of a guideline for it.

- manage EPEL more like Fedora {,Extras}

 * afaics most people in the buildup phase wanted a stable EPEL and I
really think that should continue to be our #1 goal.
Are there threads that say this? The list membership isn't huge, and we probably have a lot of users that haven't joined ... I would think there is a sizeable community of users that just want a easy way to add useful and reasonably-working-well-together packages to their platform, so they can get their jobs done. What people want in leaf packages is probably not the same as what they want for
core packages.

Quarterly doesn't really mean "stable", it just means "quarterly". So having a rolling stable where a package must be in testing for X seems reasonable to me. If we need an additional quarterly level that's ok, but if folks have to adopt everything from testing to just get one package from testing that is essentially considered stable that's a problem. I'd like to at least see an option where updates can be moved at some X which is much less than 120 days -- 2 weeks seems fair to me as most packages should have some adopters out of each

But I see a need
and interest for a "more up2date packages" EPEL repo. That what I call
EPEL-rolling; I'm fine with having it in parallel to the stable repo.
But do we have the man-power to start this yet?
Disregarding resources, what would we really like to do? I'd hate to shoot down an idea for how we are going to do things because there aren't resources. If it's a good enough idea, there might be resources crawling out of the woodwork ... you never


epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list redhat com

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