On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:09 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:56 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a > > lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to > > clarify some of the points that we were getting hung up on. > > > > Changes in this version of the proposal[2]: > > > > * Improve our explanation of why we are doing ELN in the first place > > * Clarify the relationship with Rawhide > > * Better describe what happens if packages don't build on ELN > > * Explain our plan for when to use conditionals (this was getting a > > larger share of the conversation than it warranted because we didn't > > do a good job of explaining that they should be the exception and not > > the rule) > > * Clarify that the time limit on PRs is only for determining if the > > maintainer is responsive. If they reply, the timer is cleared. > > * Fixed the question about upstream features to make it clear that > > what we meant is that new features should go upstream first, not be > > implemented as a fork in ELN > > * Added a section explaining how we will deal with side-tags > > * Make it clear that we don't want to diverge wherever possible and > > that any planned divergence should be discussed with the ELN SIG ahead > > of time > > * Cleaned up the contingency plan section. > > > > I hope that these changes will make our position more clear. Thank you > > to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I think the > > feedback has been very valuable and I sincerely appreciate it. > > > > This version of the proposal is nearly perfect, in my view. > > There are a couple of things I think should change: > > * The DistTag should be versioned. Either .eln.elX (e.g. .eln.el9), > .elnX (e.g. .eln9), or just plain .elX (e.g. .el9). > * Likewise, I think the Koji tags should be versioned too. > > I've personally been burned enough times by not having versioned > DistTags for personal rebuilds that I would strongly suggest you > reconsider having unversioned ones. > Would you mind explaining some of the situations in which you were burned? I’m not ruling this out, but I’d like a clear justification if we were to change something. > Finally, there is no adequate explanation for why ELN content can't go > out to the mirrors like Rawhide content does. I'd vastly prefer that > simply to have similar levels of availability as consumers of ELN > content. I would prefer seeing it go to the mirror network like > everything else. It’s not so much that it *cannot* as that we are trying not to overload the mirror network with content not useful to non-developers. > > Beyond that, this looks pretty good! Thanks for listening and > incorporating everyone's feedback! > Thanks! > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
