In our last EPEL Steering Committee meeting, Carl brought up a new proposal for our epel9 / epel9-next rollout. Sometimes IRC isn't the best way to explain things like that, it got a little confusing. Carl and I had a good video chat to clean up confusion and talk about some pros and cons of the various proposals. Here are the three proposals.
* PLAN A Plan A is basically what we've been working towards for the past couple of months. - launch epel9-next now-ish (ideally aligned with c9s launch promotion) - After RHEL9 goes GA -- perform a mass branch and mass rebuild to populate epel9 -- launch epel9 after RHEL9 GA is launched. ** Plan A Pros: - epel9-next and epel9 are only set up once, and not changed - ready to go now ** Plan A Cons: - complexity and added work of mass branch and mass rebuild - mass rebuild will have a moderate rate of failure due to buildroot differences (unshipped devel packages) - epel9 not available at rhel9 ga - confusing messaging to packagers: -- target epel9-next for ~6 months -- after epel9 exists target that instead, only use epel9-next when needed - confusing messaging to users: -- use epel9-next now for c9s and rhel9 beta -- use epel9-next temporarily at rhel9 launch but don’t leave it enabled -- use epel9 primarily once it exists * PLAN B - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup. - Setup epel9 using RHEL9 Beta for the buildroot. -- Pull in any errata as it comes. -- Use the repos you would for RHEL9 GA: AppStream, BaseOS, CRB - Launch epel9 and epel9-next together (In 1-2 weeks). - When RHEL9 GA is released, switch epel9 buildroot from RHEL9 Beta to RHEL9 GA ** Plan B Pros: - simple messaging to packagers: -- epel9 is the primary target, use epel9-next only when needed (same as epel8-next) - simple messaging to users: -- use epel9 everywhere (epel-next-release is a recommends on c9s) - no mass branching - no mass rebuild - No confusion from using the full CentOS Stream buildroot -- epel9 buildroot will only have AppStream, BaseOS and CRB ** Plan B Cons: - potential for large divergence between rhel9 beta and ga - changing our messaging right before the launch * PLAN C - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup. - setup up epel9 using c9s for the buildroot -- Use the repos you would for RHEL9: AppStream, BaseOS, CRB - freeze epel9 buildroot before c9s switches to 9.1 content - launch epel9 and epel9-next together (1-2 weeks) - switch epel9 buildroot from frozen c9s to rhel9 ga later ** Plan C Pros: - simple messaging to packagers: -- epel9 is the primary target, use epel9-next only when needed (same as epel8-next) - simple messaging to users: -- use epel9 everywhere (epel-next-release is a recommends on c9s) - no mass branching - no mass rebuild - No confusion from using the full CentOS Stream buildroot -- epel9 buildroot will only have AppStream, BaseOS and CRB ** Plan C Cons: - potential infrastructure complexity of freezing the epel9 buildroot - changing our messaging right before the launch Please let us know what you think. If we do choose to go with Plan B or C we will need to make the decision fairly quickly. Troy
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure