On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:08 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 09:43, Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:44 AM kevin <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> > > Thoughts? >> > >> > Well, I think it satisfies all the use cases, but... we barely have >> > enough cycles to try and revamp playground. Do we think we have enough >> > to do that and also make a new -next version? >> > >> >> Very good question. >> Without being a superhero, do you and/or Smooge think we have the >> resources to do this? >> It's sounding like the answer is no. >> > > Honestly, I don't see us having the resources to keep the playground around. Kevin's doubts a long time ago about playground stretching resources too far were correct. The build system is highly complex and just doing plain EPEL is a strain on the Fedora volunteers. Adding the playground was an experiment and I would lean towards ending it. > > Sounds like you would like C) 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) You, Kevin, and Mohan have been doing all the work. And anything we decide, you all will end up doing all that work as well. So I think totally fair that you get a huge say in what happens. But if we do decide to drop playground, I don't want it to sound like it's because of you. The facts are that EPEL has been given very limited resources, barely enough to keep normal EPEL operations running. Adding epel-playground on top, has over-taxed our limited resources. If epel-playground didn't require any extra upkeep, it might be ok. And if we find a solution that doesn't require any extra upkeep, maybe we can keep playground. But adding anything else, like -next, is over the top. At a minimum it will require extra resources every couple years to setup and take down stuff. Those are resources we don't have. >> >> > Also, if we do make it, perhaps we should think what critera we would >> > use to determine it's successfull? 10 packages using it? more than 1? >> > Perhaps we could gather a 'I would use this' list from maintainers >> > before we implement it? >> >> Also a very good question / idea. >> Any ideas on what would be a good way to ask that? >> Asking on epel-devel would get some. >> Asking on epel-annouce would get more, but if we did that, we'd have >> to have the answers not come back to that list. >> Possibly cross post to fedora-devel and/or centos-devel. >> _______________________________________________ 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
