On 10/22/20 2:51 PM, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
Hi, Vit.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:37 PM Vít Ondruch<vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was asking for ELN branch for ages and it was always denied and there
you have it [1]. So what is the current stance on this topic?
You were asking for a branch to overcome the issue with building a
package in ELN. And we have a suggestion for the alternative solution
which wouldn't require maintaining a separate eln branch forever.
For gcc we are using a temporary branch for the development of a new
feature in Fedora.
I would have named it "gcc11" branch rather than "eln", but it is a
bikeshedding exercise.
This is not about naming / bikeshedding. Whatever you call it, this is a "branch
used exclusively to build in ELN". Vít wanted this, I wanted this and many other
Fedora/RHEL packagers wanted this. Yet you argued so passionately against it.
For example you said:
I think that not having eln-branch is very important part of the
concept as we don't want to fork Fedora.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/WRJNM7I5TFQ5TEBOUKKH757K5ME3I47F/
But there were countless other arguments against having such branches. Have the
situation changed? Can other packages have eln branches as well?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
