On 24/02/16 23:36, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 29 January 2016 at 06:51, Jamie Nguyen <j...@jamielinux.com> wrote: >> My plan: >> 1. Update to 1.8.x on all branches (or to as recent a version as they >> can go without FTBFS) >> 2. Leave them in epel-testing for a prolonged period, probably until the >> next point release of RHEL. >> 3. Include some migration notes with the RPMs, and also post these notes >> to epel-devel/epel-announce. >> >> Sound reasonable? > > And it looks like I missed sending a final response on this. We talked > about this at the EPEL Steering Committee meeting and approve of this > plan. Please update to 1.8 (if you haven't already) and follow > through.
I ended up delaying this major version bump. The discussion happened at the end of February, but I realized that a new Nginx release is normally cut around April so figured it'd be better to wait until 1.10.x was released (which was yesterday). My plan now is the same as before, but to jump to 1.10.x instead for the following reasons: 1. 1.8.x is now considered "legacy" by upstream. 2. 1.8.x only has support for SPDY and *not* HTTP/2. SPDY is scheduled to be dropped by Chrome in a few weeks (and probably other modern browsers too). 3. Upgrading straight to 1.10.x (from 1.6.x or 1.0.x or 0.8.x) doesn't pose any significantly worse problems than upgrading to 1.8.x (as manual intervention from the admin will be required in most cases anyway). I don't think there's any need for an intermediate step where we upgrade to 1.8.x first, and that would likely be more disruptive anyway. Does this sound reasonable? Kind regards, -- Jamie Nguyen _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
