On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > 1. There is always a complaint that Red Hat related projects jump onto a > single name to the point of overuse. Atomic, -Shift, -Stack, and a couple > others have been ones in just recent memory. Participants in the various > communities feel usually railroaded to use a brand even if they don't think > it wise. Yesssss, that's a problem. In this case, though, it really *is* directly related. > 2.EPEL has a hard enough time getting Fedora contributions with various > community members seeing it as a useless diversion. Putting Stream in the > title will just add to the 'why isn't EPEL just in CentOS already so I > don't have to look at those ugly named branches in MY package'. So, the distinction is: EPEL is in Fedora because it's direct community ownership and maintenance. CentOS Stream is explicitly Red Hat controlled with a "patches appreciated!" approach. It's valuable to have both, but I also like the clarity of the separation. This all leads me to think that actually what we want is not "EPEL Stream" but "EPEL for Stream". (epel-for-stream? epel-4-stream? epel4s? no not that last one for sure.) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ 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
