Hello Alexandre!
On 11.09.20 20:52, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
The rationale is that many Fedora packagers do not specifically care
about EL, and with their long release cycles the maintenance burden is
higher (e.g. upgrading to fix a security vulnerability might not be
possible if the newer
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:42:36AM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> I wonder if these are two separate concerns though? I agree that being
> able to indicate a package should always be branched would be great,
> but... epel-sig / epel-wranglers might not find a package relevant in a
> new
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:42:36AM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> I wonder if these are two separate concerns though? I agree that being
> able to indicate a package should always be branched would be great,
> but... epel-sig / epel-wranglers might not find a package relevant in a
> new
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 08:54 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
...snip...
> I'll add that in addtion to some maintainers not wanting to maintain
> their fedora packages also in epel, the timelines involved sometimes
> make it so a package that was branched/maintained in epelX, makes no
> sense in epelY.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:52:03AM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
...snip...
>
> EPEL packages are maintained in dist-git as additional branches on
> Fedora packages; however, unlike with Fedora releases, where by default
> a package gets branched for any new Fedora release, EPEL branches
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 03:50:58PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> We discussed the proposal a bit at today's EPEL SC meeting; here's a
> revised proposal taking into account the suggestions from the meeting
> and earlier in this list.
>
> ## The SIG
> - bstinson pointed out that
We discussed the proposal a bit at today's EPEL SC meeting; here's a
revised proposal taking into account the suggestions from the meeting
and earlier in this list.
## The SIG
- bstinson pointed out that epel-wranglers was started to address the
same issue, we can resurrect that
- we want to
We discussed the proposal a bit at today's EPEL SC meeting; here's a
revised proposal taking into account the suggestions from the meeting
and earlier in this list.
## The SIG
- bstinson pointed out that epel-wranglers was started to address the
same issue, we can resurrect that
- we want to
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 15:44 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood
> wrote:
> > Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
> >
> > > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches
> > > and
> > > admin access to packages if there are no response from
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
>
> > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and
> > admin access to packages if there are no response from package
> > maintainers for a set period (3 days? 1 week?)
> > *
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
>
> > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and
> > admin access to packages if there are no response from package
> > maintainers for a set period (3 days? 1 week?)
> > *
11 matches
Mail list logo
