On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 12:54 PM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: ... > > Of course, this time around we were also rushing to get the > > infrastructure in place for CentOS Stream 9, which will already be > > available for EL 10... so maybe the answer here is to just go directly > > from ELN into CentOS Stream 10 at the Fedora 40 Branch point? It means > > a bit more manual syncing from Fedora during that time period, but > > that might not be too painful. > > If the manual sync is easy (no bugzillas flags required), I would say > that is the way to go. It eliminates one extra "why is the workflow > changing every week" moment. It also no longer encourages the RHEL > maintains to push their changes to Fedora branched in the same time > windows when we try to stabilize it. >
Yeah, I was becoming more confident in that idea the longer I typed. I think that is probably what we will end up doing. ... > > I think we can make the policy super-simple: every package on ELN gets > > forcibly re-synced to Rawhide on the day we fork to CentOS Stream. > > Each new major release reset, we require them to request to diverge > > the sync again. > > That sounds really harsh towards the maintainers who actually do keep > the eln branch up to date all the time. We would wipe their changes > every 3 years, and they would need to reintroduce them again. Oh, I didn't mean we would clobber the `eln` branch, we'd just flip the switch to re-enable Rawhide builds (with a loud announcement). We'd accept requests at that time to *not* flip the switch for their project, or they could do so at any time afterwards. This would leave the `eln` branch exactly as it was; and if they request not to sync, they can resume from there. I view this as an easy way to do two things at once: 1) See who is still actively maintaining their project for ELN and reset it if they aren't. 2) Make it a no-op for anyone who wants to jump back on the Rawhide train (even if only for some number of months until they freeze it again). > >> 3) Similarly, assume foo has opted in for an eln branch. The Fedora > >> packager maintainer walks away and foo is adapted by another maintainer > >> who wants to maintain %if-spaghetti rather than 2 distinct branches. How > >> do they opt out? Do we "archive" the eln branch until it is requested > >> again? Or do we merge rawhide and eln branches, sot hey have the same > >> HEAD and than turn eln into a symbolic reference? > >> > > > > I think archiving the ELN branch is probably the simplest approach > > here. All we need to do is flip the auto-rebuild configuration back > > over to stop excluding the package and the next Rawhide build will > > trigger an ELN build again. > > However, when looking at the package source, it should be really obvious > that the eln branch is no longer used for ELN. Otherwise it will be very > confusing for people who want to contribute. True... maybe we dead.package the `eln` branch if they don't request to retain it ahead of time. They can always do a git revert to bring it back to life later. _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
