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
26 matches
Mail list logo
