On 4/7/20 1:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The other piece of it is that there's a UX/psychological piece to it.
If we call it .eln9.1.0, people are quite likely to skim over the 'n'
and confuse themselves into thinking it's a RHEL 9.1.0 package. That
way lies a support nightmare. We absolutely
On 08. 04. 20 14:52, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Then use .el.9.dev. That should still order mostly fine
.el9~dev would sort even better.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
Le mardi 07 avril 2020 à 14:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
>
> The other piece of it is that there's a UX/psychological piece to it.
> If we call it .eln9.1.0, people are quite likely to skim over the 'n'
> and confuse themselves into thinking it's a RHEL 9.1.0 package.
Then use .el.9.dev
Dne 07. 04. 20 v 20:55 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:53 PM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
> > lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
> > clarify some of the points that we were
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 11:53:47 PM
> Subject: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V4
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:53 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
> lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
> clarify some of the points that we were getting hung
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:49 PM James Cassell
wrote:
> eln9.100.0 makes the relation to RHEL cycle obvious without looking like a
> RHEL tag. Is dot allowed here? Do we need eln9_100_1?
The dots would be permissible here.
That said, can you describe what value you see in having the RHEL
cycle re
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:27 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:16 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > > This definitely solves the issue I've been thinking of. I'm not sure I
> > > > > understand why we want to disconnect th
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:27 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:16 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > This definitely solves the issue I've been thinking of. I'm not sure I
> > > > understand why we want to disconnect the ELN version from the upcoming
> > > > RHEL version, even in
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:27 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:16 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > This definitely solves the issue I've been thinking of. I'm not sure I
> > > > understand why we want to disconnect the ELN version from the upcoming
> > > > RHEL version, even in
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:16 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > This definitely solves the issue I've been thinking of. I'm not sure I
> > > understand why we want to disconnect the ELN version from the upcoming
> > > RHEL version, even in the DistTag? It seems to be a weird hoop to
> > > separate when we
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:11 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:55 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:50 PM Aleksandra Fedorova
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:13 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 07. 04. 20 12:1
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:55 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:50 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:13 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07. 04. 20 12:18, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > > >> What I'm confused about is the hangup with ve
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:02 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > This definitely solves the issue I've been thinking of. I'm not sure I
> > understand why we want to disconnect the ELN version from the upcoming
> > RHEL version, even in the DistTag?
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> This definitely solves the issue I've been thinking of. I'm not sure I
> understand why we want to disconnect the ELN version from the upcoming
> RHEL version, even in the DistTag? It seems to be a weird hoop to
> separate when we all know this is
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:50 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:13 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 07. 04. 20 12:18, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > >> What I'm confused about is the hangup with versioning the ELN tree.
> > >> Why is this a problem?
> > > I explain
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:13 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 07. 04. 20 12:18, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> >> What I'm confused about is the hangup with versioning the ELN tree.
> >> Why is this a problem?
> > I explained it in one of the previous threads:
> >
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.or
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:10 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2020 22:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > Changes in this version of the proposal[2]:
> >
> > * Improve our explanation of why we are doing ELN in the first place
>
> I agree that the proposal is now a lot clearer and I certa
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:33 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 06:48:17PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:22 PM Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >> I've personally been burned enough times by not having v
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:46 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
...
> > * Added a section explaining how we will deal with side-tags
>
>
> Thank you for addressing this.
>
> However, could you please elaborate what will be the actual trigger to
> do rebuild of some package in ELN? It can't be `git push` if you
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 06:48:17PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:22 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> I've personally been burned enough times by not having versioned
> >> DistTags for personal rebuilds that I would strongl
On 07. 04. 20 12:18, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
What I'm confused about is the hangup with versioning the ELN tree.
Why is this a problem?
I explained it in one of the previous threads:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OQ7BW5RFQDJYLPTB6G5XBZSIY
Hi, Neal,
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:49 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:22 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>
> >> * The DistTag should be versioned. Either .eln.elX (e.g. .eln.el9),
> >> .elnX (e.g. .eln9), or just
On 07. 04. 20 10:09, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:
That will mean that most %fedora conditions will need to be
extended with a %rhel condition and that in many cases new
features may silently not be enabled in ELN builds until that
is manually discovered and the condition is amended which seems
to
On 06/04/2020 22:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Changes in this version of the proposal[2]:
* Improve our explanation of why we are doing ELN in the first place
I agree that the proposal is now a lot clearer and I certainly see
how it furthers the first goral of seeing how Fedora trunk comes
to
Dne 06. 04. 20 v 23:53 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
> lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
> clarify some of the points that we were getting hung up on.
>
> Changes in this version of the proposal[2]
On 07. 04. 20 0:47, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 06. 04. 20 23:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
* Clarify that the time limit on PRs is only for determining if the
maintainer is responsive. If they reply, the timer is cleared.
As a side note (probably
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:22 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> * The DistTag should be versioned. Either .eln.elX (e.g. .eln.el9),
>> .elnX (e.g. .eln9), or just plain .elX (e.g. .el9).
>> * Likewise, I think the Koji tags should be versione
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 06. 04. 20 23:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * Clarify that the time limit on PRs is only for determining if the
> > maintainer is responsive. If they reply, the timer is cleared.
>
> As a side note (probably out of scope of this proposal
On 06. 04. 20 23:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
* Clarify that the time limit on PRs is only for determining if the
maintainer is responsive. If they reply, the timer is cleared.
As a side note (probably out of scope of this proposal), I think that if we have
RHEL packages in Fedora with not ver
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:56 PM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
> > lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've fi
On 07. 04. 20 0:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
This version of the proposal is nearly perfect, in my view.
There are a couple of things I think should change:
* The DistTag should be versioned. Either .eln.elX (e.g. .eln.el9),
.elnX (e.g. .eln9), or just plain .elX (e.g. .el9).
The good thing is that
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:56 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
> lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
> clarify some of the points that we were gettin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
clarify some of the points that we were getting hung up on.
Changes in this version of the proposal[2]:
* Improve
34 matches
Mail list logo
