On Thu, 2021-01-28 at 15:15 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:05:16PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: > > As we are getting closer to the F34 branching, which means we are > > getting closer to CentOS 9 Stream, which will eventually be turned > > into RHEL9 Beta, and then RHEL9 release. Now seems like a good > > time > > to get ideas flowing about EPEL9. > > > > I'm just throwing ideas around. Nothing I'm saying here is even > > close > > to policy or a final plan. If people have other ideas, feel free > > to > > say them. > > > > epel8-next is getting closer and closer to being in place. > > To me it seems logical to create a epel9-next, pointing at the > > CentOS > > 9 Stream (when it comes). It would need the same setting up as > > epel8-next, all the steps would be the same other than the name and > > where it points for it's repo. > > > > We could also setup some type of signup board for if maintainers > > want > > the EPEL Packaging SIG to automatically bring their packages over. > > > > With epel9-next in place, and good set of EPEL9 packages in it, > > users > > would be able to test RHEL9 much better in it's beta phase. > > > > Also, it would take alot of pressure off when we start getting > > regular > > EPEL9 setup. If it takes a month or two, people wouldn't be as > > concerned, because they could always just grab the packages from > > epel9-next. > > I think that could be workable, but I'll toss out another proposal: > > As soon as centos 9 stream exists, we create epel9-playground and > allow > people to branch/add packages to it. Once rhel9 is GA, we setup epel9 > as > usual and epel9-next and point epel9-next to build against stream and > playground to build against rhel9. epel9-playground acting first as a "Rawhide" for c9s pre-RHEL9 GA and then as a playground for RHEL9 could be a bit confusing? > > The advantages of that would be that epel9-playground is more rawhide > like... it would compose every night and there's no bodhi overhead. > Of course to be confusing we could just treat epel9-stream that way > until GA too I suppose. > Right, using epel9-next but with no Bodhi gating until GA seems like a nice idea. To add another variant to this: we can also start enabling Bodhi but with time-to-stable set to 3 days (like Fedora betas) once RHEL 9 is in beta? i.e. "we think c9s should have stabilized enough by now that we can start gating EPEL packages targeting it". Best regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
