On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:50:39PM -0300, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote: > > On 21/8/20 19:06, Troy Dawson wrote: > > C) Drop playground. Say it was an interesting experiment and we > > learned stuff, but shut it down. > > (and clean up the package.cfg files as part of shutting it down) > > > > D) > > 1 - Manual builds only. No package.cfg files. No automatic builds. > > 2 - Assume playground depends on epel8. > > 3 - Use CentOS 8 Stream to build against. > > > > I am leaning towards option D. > > We've already got all the playground infrastructure setup. I don't > > want to waste that. So, although I said option C in the meeting, that > > doesn't mean I want it, I was just stating it was an option. > I like option D too, looks like a more polished version of option B Do we have any data here? Are stream changes breaking epel packages so that they need rebuilds often? It will mean that if someone wants to use playground to test some large change in epel, they will have to find people who also enable stream to test it most likely? Do we know that many/any people are consuming stream all the time? We also don't have much way to say 'if you enable epel8-playground you have to enable stream repos also'. I guess I don't think the yummy to trouble ratio is good enough here to justify the trouble of enabling stream. Can you expand on why this is good/what it gets us? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
