Fudcon EPEL discussion summary/report

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Tue Jan 22 16:44:19 UTC 2013

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:10:24 -0600
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> wrote:

> How about a suggestion/recommendation (but _not_ requirement) that
> maintainers try to time incompatible upgrades approximately with RHEL
> point releases?  So if you are going to update mediawiki (without a
> version in the package name) to a new version for EPEL 6, you try to
> do it about the same time that Red Hat releases the next 6.x version.
> Red Hat releases public betas, so we generally know an update is
> coming (although not the exact timing); that would be the signal to
> "get your incompat upgrades into epel-testing".
> For older releases (RHEL 5.x at this point for example), Red Hat slows
> down point releases, so waiting may not always be feasible for those.
> I don't know about other admins, but I tend to pay more attention to
> release notes and such around that time (I know I should pay more
> attention all the time, but time is limited).

Sure, sounds reasonable... 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20130122/3fd93cc4/attachment.sig>

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list