On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 4:29 PM Leon Fauster via epel-devel <epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 02.12.21 um 19:49 schrieb Carl George: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:32 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. > >> > >> Troy > > > > Closing the loop here, at the 2021-11-24 EPEL Steering Committee > > meeting we voted and selected plan C. > > > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2021-11-24-21.00.html > > > > We are in the process of finishing up the EPEL9 implementation and > > plan to launch EPEL9 and EPEL9 Next together with a formal > > announcement very soon. Until then you may notice parts of that > > implementation coming online (repositories, release packages, etc.) > > but we recommend waiting until the announcement for official > > instructions. > > > > > That sounds nice! Just curious - what indicates the switch to 9.1 > content? Any sample point(s) that indicates such "branch"? There are none. C9S is a continuously delivered distribution which RHEL is derived from. Equivalency to distinct RHEL minor releases at point-in-time intervals isn't something that Stream does. In talking with Carl directly, he was using this as shorthand for instituting a freeze of the EPEL buildroot in preparation of solidifying it for a RHEL GA. RHEL's release cadence is publicly documented, so my understanding is that the EPEL team will do some of their own projections from the spring/fall RHEL release cadence (typically May and Nov) and work backwards to what they feel is a safe point in time to solidify. josh _______________________________________________ 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
