2014-03-21 16:07 GMT+04:00 Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org>:
>> It doesn't exist, it's an idea that Robyn has floated semi-seriously >> as a way to provide a repo that moves faster than EPEL. Rather than >> try to jam fast-moving stuff in to EPEL, the idea was to do an Extra >> Packages for Infrastructure and Cloud (EPIC) that had a different, >> faster-moving charter. EPIC would target the *EL platform just as EPEL >> does. Faster moving rate is great indeed. But adding more than on version of software (no matter of how many repos it takes) means only one - we have to impose additional support requiremetns on a packagers. The "social contract" requiremens for EPEL "support" (which of souce isn't a "real" support) is way too high for the average maintainer. That's the reason I believe the entire EPEL idea was a huge mistake and waste of time - unfortunately I failed to discuss this with other fellow fedora members during FOSDEM Fedora.NEXT related talks. > I think this is a great place to try out what we can do with CentOS > collaboration, since they're officially "in the family" now. Anyone have > ideas on how best to proceed with that? New SIGs in both projects? A single > new SIG spanning both? (CentOS's new SIGs seem to be a lot more heavyweight > in terms of process than the concept we have for them in Fedora, for better > or worse.) Some new joint upstream to be the meeting point? No matter of the current situation I'd love to discuss possible ways to improve it. So count me in as well. -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
