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 EL
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. ie,
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 epel-wrang
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 limit
