Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:32 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In our last EPEL Steering Committee meeting, Carl brought up a new proposal for our epel9 / epel9-next rollout.  Sometimes IRC isn't the best way to explain things like that, it got a little confusing.  Carl and I had a good video chat to clean up confusion and talk about some pros and cons of the various proposals.
> Here are the three proposals.
>
> * PLAN A
> Plan A is basically what we've been working towards for the past couple of months.
> - launch epel9-next now-ish (ideally aligned with c9s launch promotion)
> - After RHEL9 goes GA
> -- perform a mass branch and mass rebuild to populate epel9
> -- launch epel9 after RHEL9 GA is launched.
>
> ** Plan A Pros:
> - epel9-next and epel9 are only set up once, and not changed
> - ready to go now
>
> ** Plan A Cons:
> - complexity and added work of mass branch and mass rebuild
> - mass rebuild will have a moderate rate of failure due to buildroot differences (unshipped devel packages)
> - epel9 not available at rhel9 ga
> - confusing messaging to packagers:
> -- target epel9-next for ~6 months
> -- after epel9 exists target that instead, only use epel9-next when needed
> - confusing messaging to users:
> -- use epel9-next now for c9s and rhel9 beta
> -- use epel9-next temporarily at rhel9 launch but don’t leave it enabled
> -- use epel9 primarily once it exists
>
>
> * PLAN B
> - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup.
> - Setup epel9 using RHEL9 Beta for the buildroot.
> -- Pull in any errata as it comes.
> -- Use the repos you would for RHEL9 GA: AppStream, BaseOS, CRB
> - Launch epel9 and epel9-next together (In 1-2 weeks).
> - When RHEL9 GA is released, switch epel9 buildroot from RHEL9 Beta to RHEL9 GA
>
> ** Plan B Pros:
> - simple messaging to packagers:
> -- epel9 is the primary target, use epel9-next only when needed (same as epel8-next)
> - simple messaging to users:
> -- use epel9 everywhere (epel-next-release is a recommends on c9s)
> - no mass branching
> - no mass rebuild
> - No confusion from using the full CentOS Stream buildroot
> -- epel9 buildroot will only have AppStream, BaseOS and CRB
>
> ** Plan B Cons:
> - potential for large divergence between rhel9 beta and ga
> - changing our messaging right before the launch
>
>
> * PLAN C
> - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup.
> - setup up epel9 using c9s for the buildroot
> -- Use the repos you would for RHEL9: AppStream, BaseOS, CRB
> - freeze epel9 buildroot before c9s switches to 9.1 content
> - launch epel9 and epel9-next together (1-2 weeks)
> - switch epel9 buildroot from frozen c9s to rhel9 ga later
>
> ** Plan C Pros:
> - simple messaging to packagers:
> -- epel9 is the primary target, use epel9-next only when needed (same as epel8-next)
> - simple messaging to users:
> -- use epel9 everywhere (epel-next-release is a recommends on c9s)
> - no mass branching
> - no mass rebuild
> - No confusion from using the full CentOS Stream buildroot
> -- epel9 buildroot will only have AppStream, BaseOS and CRB
>
> ** Plan C Cons:
> - potential infrastructure complexity of freezing the epel9 buildroot
> - changing our messaging right before the launch
>
>
> Please let us know what you think.
> If we do choose to go with Plan B or C we will need to make the decision fairly quickly.
>

I like Plan C, personally. Especially given how easy it is to work
with the RHEL maintainers with CentOS Stream 9 right now, when it's
easy to get content from buildroot added to CRB. Post-GA is way more
painful and slower. There's also the benefit of on-ramping folks using
the RHEL 9 beta too.

I've been testing some builds for an EPEL-like thing for some dev work
effectively by doing Plan C, and it has been working fantastically
well.

So I'd love to see Plan C executed ASAP, so I can move that work into
EPEL proper.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora QA]     [Fedora Triage]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Maemo Users]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux