On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:34 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I can see two big reasons for not using Stream in the name as the starting point of a proposal: > 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. I don't think that's as much of an issue here since this would be specifically targeting CentOS Stream. It's not really a name so much as a version in string form. > 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'. > Warning: heresy and rampant speculation ahead! It's too early to do this now, but I think there's a compelling case to be made for shifting EPEL from Fedora to Stream at some point. This would be dependent on getting a solid contributor community established for Stream, of course. Realistically, I'd say we're a few years away from making that transition, but I think the Stream community would be a more natural fit. If CentOS Stream had existed when EPEL started, I don't think we'd have made EPEL a part of Fedora, despite the good points Matthew makes below. (In other words, it's not a foregone conclusion that EPEL should be a part of Stream, and there are reasons not to do that, but there are also reasons to do that. That's a problem for Future Us to solve.) On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:28 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > See comments above (just leaving this quote in for reference) > 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.) 2EPEL2Streamious. In seriousness, EPEL 8 is Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 8, right? So we can go one of two ways: 1. Loosen the definition of what "Enterprise Linux" means (after all, it's not EPRHEL...) and go with something like "EPEL 8 Stream" or "EPEL Stream 8" (I'm inclined toward the latter) 2. Keep the pattern and call it "EPCS 8" for "Extra Packages for CentOS Stream 8". That has the benefit of being more clear what we're targeting at the cost of potential changes in tooling and adding YAA (yet another acronym) to the mix. (I say "acronym" here because it would clearly be pronounced as "epics", not the initialism "Eee pee cee ess") -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ 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
