27.4.2016, 14.23, Jamie Nguyen kirjoitti:
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?

This change to the plans was discussed briefly in yesterday's EPEL Steering Committee meeting, and we're OK with updating straight to 1.10.x.

I believe there are a number of people who are interested in HTTP/2 support, so please do go on with this plan.
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to