Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Felix Schwarz
<felix.schwarz at oss.schwarz.eu> wrote:
>
> Stephen John Smoogen schrieb:
>>
>> Ok the big problem is that there are multiple types of users for EPEL,
>> and each group seems to wax and wane in asking for things. Several
>> months ago, the people who wanted to have newer stuff regularly versus
>> once a quarter asked and got enough push to get it done.
>
> I think you are right that there are different types of users. You can't
> make
> everyone happy.
>
> But it is not (at least from my pov) about monthly vs. quarterly releases. I
> really like monthly updates. But the EPEL policy (as I read it) states that
> version updates should not happen unless there is a really good reason. IMHO
> the question whether to push new packages on a quarterly, monthly or daily
> basis is completely separate.
>

I guess I need help parsing in what you are meaning by stable. are you meaning:

A) el5/nethack-3.4.3 should always be el5/nethack-3.4.3 with only
patches to that version of the software?

B) that once a month it could be minorly updated say from
el5/nethack-3.4.3 to el5/nethack-3.4.5 as long as the code base is
mostly the same without major patches?

C) that once a month it could go like el5/nethack-3.4.3 to el5/nethack-4.0?

or something else?

>> I would love to be able to have different channels for each of the
>> types of releases that people want, but everyone wants something
>> different.
>
> That's why I think we should concentrate on the stable policy. If the
> infrastructure gets in a shape that we can serve an unstable branch (and we
> have the volunteers to do it!), we could extend EPEL's focus.
>

The only time I have seen strong commitment to a stable branch is when
things break... and then it is forgotten a month or two later.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"