On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:58, Ken Dreyer <ktdre...@ktdreyer.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 6:50 AM Petr Pisar <ppi...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Carl George wrote: >> > To solve this problem, I am proposing that we create a new repository >> called >> > EPEL 8 Next. >> > >> > - built against CentOS 8 Stream >> > - opt-in for packagers (must request epel8-next dist-git branch) >> > - opt-in for users (part of epel-release but disabled by default) >> > - used *with* epel8, not *instead of* >> > >> I agree with all of that. I only don't like the name. Why EPEL 8 Next? If >> it >> is to be use with Stream, why don't we call it EPEL 8 Stream? I think the >> meaning of the repository would be easier to understand. >> > > I was thinking the same thing. EPEL stream is so much easier for users to > understand. > > I can see two big reasons for not using Stream in the name as the starting point of a proposal: 1. There is always a complaint that Red Hat related projects jump onto a single name to the point of overuse. Atomic, -Shift, -Stack, and a couple others have been ones in just recent memory. Participants in the various communities feel usually railroaded to use a brand even if they don't think it wise. 2.EPEL has a hard enough time getting Fedora contributions with various community members seeing it as a useless diversion. Putting Stream in the title will just add to the 'why isn't EPEL just in CentOS already so I don't have to look at those ugly named branches in MY package'. -- Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
