On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:10:52AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 at 16:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 05:09:44PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure this is all a super big deal, but I'd really like to make
> > sure we make _very_ clear
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 at 16:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 05:09:44PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this is all a super big deal, but I'd really like to make
> sure we make _very_ clear who is responsible for what. Some maintainers
> would be happy to maintain for tha
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 05:09:44PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> Sorry for coming late to the discussion. I took a week off and all
> sorts of things happened while I was gone.
That fast paced open source development. :)
> I believe Kevin and Smooge, and possibly even you Davide got this
> bac
On Sat, 2021-03-13 at 17:09 -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Sorry for coming late to the discussion. I took a week off and all
> sorts of things happened while I was gone.
>
> I believe Kevin and Smooge, and possibly even you Davide got this
> backwards. And I think if we do this right, this can be
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, at 8:09 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:49 AM Davide Cavalca via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 09:26 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > I'd like to encourage anyone interested in this meeting to submit
> > > agenda topics by replying to
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:49 AM Davide Cavalca via devel
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 09:26 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I'd like to encourage anyone interested in this meeting to submit
> > agenda topics by replying to this email. Currently the agenda
>
> One thing I'd be interested in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
=
#fedora-meeting: ELN (2021-03-12)
=
Meeting started by sgallagh at 17:07:34 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2021-03-12/eln.2021-0
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 02:31:14PM -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Sorry for jumping in late, I'm sporadically online while on parental
> leave (haven't been able to touch my laptop for the past few days!)
No need to be sorry. :) Congrats!
> Mass-branching does seem too different from what
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 12:55:44AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> That would be more or less what Ubuntu universe is doing: branch every
> package in Fedora, build it once for EPEL, and then just let it rot unless a
> maintainer volunteers to actually maintain it. It might be better than
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I have a couple of packages which I find handy to have in EPEL -- little
> command line utilities, mostly -- and which have very little change over
> time and which I'm 99.9% will just build on EPEL 9. My EPEL maintenance
> policy is basically "build once when there is a new
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 16:24 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 01:11:55PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > In any case, I'm not convinced mass branching is ever going to work
> > for
> > epel. Although I suppose as more packages have the epel packager
> > sig
> > group on them, tha
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 06:56:24AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > I think we are all using different short hand definitions of what we want
> > to happen and are seeing each other skip steps because of that. I am very
> > guilty of this wh
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 01:11:55PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> In any case, I'm not convinced mass branching is ever going to work for
> epel. Although I suppose as more packages have the epel packager sig
> group on them, that group could work on faster adding piles of packages.
> Perhaps we shou
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 06:56:24AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> I think we are all using different short hand definitions of what we want
> to happen and are seeing each other skip steps because of that. I am very
> guilty of this when saying what could happen in this scenario. The
> follow
On Tue, 2021-03-02 at 08:38 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> So mainly a package maintainer only worries about what is deployed at
> their workplace. And I would guess from the size of unanswered bugs
> and other things, some of these maintainers did a one-time build to
> get what they wanted a
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 08:54 +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:46:52AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > All that said, we could change this and just mass branch everything
> > and
> > leave it to maintainers to clean up/dead.package/retire things they
> > no
> > longer wish to ma
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 03:01, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:46:52AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:04:56AM +, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
> > > Yes, the idea I had in mind was that each package that currenty has an
> > > "epel8" branch would al
V Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:46:52AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:04:56AM +, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
> > Yes, the idea I had in mind was that each package that currenty has an
> > "epel8" branch would also get an "epeln" branch that would be built
> > against
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:04:56AM +, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 12:47 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I'm not sure exactly what you mean here...
> >
> > I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) you are wanting "all EPEL
> > packages" to also be built as part of ELN
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:17:31AM +, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
> I should probably expand on why I'm thinking about this in the first
> place. I want to use ELN as a proxy for the next CentOS Stream release
> to streamline its qualification on our infrastructure. The idea being
> that if
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 20:18, Davide Cavalca via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 15:49 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > That would require a lot of changes in both EPEL and in Fedora. In
> > Fedora there is a general expectation that if a 'branch' is acti
On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 15:49 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> That would require a lot of changes in both EPEL and in Fedora. In
> Fedora there is a general expectation that if a 'branch' is active
> then it is maintained by someone.. usually the primary maintainer.
> Many Fedora maintainers ar
On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 12:47 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean here...
>
> I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) you are wanting "all EPEL
> packages" to also be built as part of ELN and shipped as some sort of
> 'EPEL-ELN' ?
Yes, the idea I had in mind was that ea
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 14:46, Davide Cavalca via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 09:26 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I'd like to encourage anyone interested in this meeting to submit
> > agenda topics by replying to this email. Currently the agenda
>
> On
On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 07:45:09PM +, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 09:26 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I'd like to encourage anyone interested in this meeting to submit
> > agenda topics by replying to this email. Currently the agenda
>
> One thing I'd be inter
On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 09:26 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd like to encourage anyone interested in this meeting to submit
> agenda topics by replying to this email. Currently the agenda
One thing I'd be interested in exploring is the feasibility of
extending ELN to cover EPEL as well. This w
Thank you to everyone who responded to the WhenIsGood. While no time
was available for all respondents, I selected the time with the
greatest availability. We will hold the inaugural ELN SIG meeting on
Friday, March 12th at noon EST (1700 UTC). We will hold this meeting
on Freenode IRC in #fedora-m
27 matches
Mail list logo
