On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.sm...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Dave Johansen wrote: > > RHSCL is a non-starter where I work (and I imagine at other > > locations). 2-3 years of support just isn't enough to make it a > > worthwhile investment. > > Well, there usually _is_ more than one (1) [RH]SCL per RHEL release. > So it's more like 2-3 releases that "rebase" every 2+ years, for 6-7 > years total of the RHEL release. > > The idea here is that you have up to three (3) years to "rebase." ;) > > Not that [RH]SCL is 3 years and that's it. I mean ... understand my > intent here. Sustaining engineering is _not_ free, it's _not_ > upstream, and people should be expected to rebase every 2-3 years, > when it comes closer to Upstream. > > Again, understand the "bigger picture" of my "suggestion." > > > For example, we just barely started upgrading to EL 7 ... (cut) > > _So_ you will likely be on the _second_ [RH]SCL release for RHEL 7, > instead of the _first_. So ... what's the problem? > > So ... I have to now ask ... have you used [RH]SCL? ;) > > I.e., Again, it's _not_ only 3 years of RHEL, but 3 years per release, > with each RHEL releases getting 2-3 releases over 6-7 years. > > Ergo ... > SCL is an AWESOME idea, but for our organization, having to jump to the next version of an SCL every 2-3 years just isn't possible. We use RHEL because of its long support life cycle and starting to use the SCL breaks that idea. If SCL had a lifecycle more akin to RHEL (i.e. something like release half as often and support for twice as long), then it would be a different story. > > For most packages, leaving the version that's there alone is probably > > a decent solution, but for packages where security fixes continue to > > happen and are important, then an "official" upgrade path would be > > good. Maybe something like: > > 1) Current maintainer identifies upgraded version and reason for update > > (hopefully limited to security fixes or something along those lines and > not > > just "I want a newer version"), > > 2) Notifies intention on mailing list, > > 3) Feedback from community, and > > 4) Perform upgrade > > Which works out very well for something that rebases every 2-3 years > ... like [RH]SCL. > > Again, I wasn't trying to say "be like [RH]SCL," but more like, > "Here's a Red Hat add-on that kinda already has this 'lifecycle' that > Red Hat customers would understand." > Sorry, what I was trying to get across was the idea of having a process that discouraged but allowed for upgrades in a controlled manner while giving users plenty of time to prepare for it.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
