On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:18 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Also might there be people who want to always keep something in rawhide > > and never push it to the stable stream? Or do we want to encourage only > > things destined for the next minor change land in epel8-rawhide? > > > > Yes. We need to keep that in consideration. > When cleaning up the -testing branches of EPEL6 and EPEL7 we found > there were people who had versions in -testing that they never > intended to push to stable. > Once EPEL8/7 has modularity, there will be an official way to do that, > but until that happens, we need to assume that some people will use > rawhide as a way to have a second version of their package. > Right, I think Troy has the pulse of it. I think the current design is compatible with that, though. I see the following common cases from most to least common: 1) Leave package.cfg in epel8, build only there -> epel8 repo and epel8-rawhide repo 2) Remove package.cfg in epel 8. Build stable in epel8 -> epel8 repo. Build major release planned for an upcoming (not necessarily next...) X.Y release in Rawhide -> epel8-rawhide repo. 3) Remove package.cfg in epel 8. Build stable in epel8 -> epel8 repo. Build rolling release in epel8-rawhide of the latest upstream bits, not necessarily ever planning to move it into stable -> epel8-rawhide repo. Case 3 I think will slowly disappear once we enable (and simplify creation of) modules in EPEL 8, since they'll be able to just provide a non-default stream. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
