Testing -> stable?

Michael DeHaan mdehaan at redhat.com
Tue Aug 28 18:32:42 UTC 2007

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 26.08.2007 17:35, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> There's been a lot of conversations about the testing -> stable process 
>> on this list, on IRC and just in general chats.  Can someone explain 
>> what the current consensus is?  I have branding concerns.
I'd really like to see something that is more updated than stable 
without being "testing".   An additional level
seems sufficient.

>  * if there is a strong need to move a package it is allowed according
> to the policy. But for the other updates I think we manage EPEL similar
> to how RHEL does it: non-crucial updates go into a quarterly update and
> no major updates if there isn't a reasons for them. Just "latest and
> greatest" is IMHO not the reason
How do you determine which bugfixes are "serious enough"? ... it seems 
like the package maintainers
usually would be the best qualified to make this decision if there is a 
bit of a guideline for it.

> - manage EPEL more like Fedora {,Extras}
>  * afaics most people in the buildup phase wanted a stable EPEL and I
> really think that should continue to be our #1 goal. 
Are there threads that say this?   The list membership isn't huge, and 
we probably have a lot of users
that haven't joined ... I would think there is a sizeable community of 
users that just want a easy way
to add useful and reasonably-working-well-together packages to their 
platform, so they can get their
jobs done.   What people want in leaf packages is probably not the same 
as what they want for
core packages.

Quarterly doesn't really mean "stable", it just means "quarterly".   So 
having a rolling stable where a package must be
in testing for X seems reasonable to me.   If we need an additional 
quarterly level that's ok,
but if folks have to adopt everything from testing to just get one 
package from testing that is essentially
considered stable that's a problem.   I'd like to at least see an option 
where updates can be moved at some X which
is much less than 120 days -- 2 weeks seems fair to me as most packages 
should have some adopters out of each

> But I see a need
> and interest for a "more up2date packages" EPEL repo. That what I call
> EPEL-rolling; I'm fine with having it in parallel to the stable repo.
> But do we have the man-power to start this yet?
Disregarding resources, what would we really like to do?  I'd hate to 
shoot down an idea for how we are going to do things
because there aren't resources.  If it's a good enough idea, there might 
be resources crawling out of the woodwork ... you never

> CU
> thl
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list