On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:50:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Reading this proposal and with the EPEL8 experience, where there was not > even wiki page, where I could state that I don't care about EPEL and I > had to reply into every BZ independently, wouldn't it make sense to move > EPEL into its own dist-git namespace? > > I guess that in the CVS days, having EPEL branch was fine. During PkgDB > days, where we could assign maintainer to each branch, it was still > fine. But since we lost this ability, isn't it time to rethink the > setup? We have the ability back, see the answers from Neal Gompa. > I think this would give more power to EPEL SIG and give relieve > to Fedora packagers. What you are saying would make sense if there was only the EPEL SIG. But we also have plenty of packagers who do care about their EPEL packages, and they would be inconvenienced by such a split. It seems that there are even people who like to keep one spec file for all branches, incl. EPEL. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
