On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > 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. I think playground might be fixable/made of use without too much work... * adjust fedpkg to stop requesting playground branches always/only request them on explicit ask * change the inheritence in koji so it inherits from epel8 * untag all the things that are "older" in playground * add more docs about what it is and how it works * perhaps make it send a daily report for each compose I suppose though that if we get those things in place, adding a epel8-stream shouldn't be much work over that (aside mirroring stream repos and adding them to koji). I wish we could get some idea of the usage of things to know where best to send our limited efforts. Are people using playground? Would they use it more if it was smaller/just big changes packages? Are there enough stream users to justify a epel repo built against it? Would it be popular if there were? I'm open on how to answer these questions, or I suppose we just guess as best we can. We could also decide to do something if we get the resources. ie, don't set a time when something is done, say it depends on free time of interested parties. I suppose all that didn't help too much did it? 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
