On February 18, 2016 7:08:34 PM PST, Michael Stahnke <stah...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >I was trying to reply to everything inline, but being the responsible >posters ya'll are, you trimmed and everything leaving context harder to >just jump in on :) > >Way back in the day when I had a lot more time to spend on EPEL, I >loved >it. There were a few assumptions made then that I think don't hold up >now. > >1. 5 year lifecycle. 5 years is doable in a stretch by some >maintainers. >Now, it's 10 or 13 years depending on how you slice your RHEL support. >That's too long for any volunteer. >2. Upstreams move a heck of a lot faster. As users/developers started >trusting update mechansims more and speed/agility were seen as good >rather >than anti-stable, upstreams started moving. That means a LONG support >release from some upstream players might be 18 months vs 4 years in the >mid >2000s.
A large part of that, too, has been the widespread implementation of CI testing. There are fewer and fewer packages that consider any branch "unstable" anymore. > >Those two assumptions not holding up are enough of a reason to >recharter. > >One thing I wished we had done early on was attract EPEL maintainers or >separate from Fedora where desired. I found that lots of people only >wanted >to maintain packages in Fedora. They didn't care about EPEL at all. I >found >that people who really cared about the EL stack, didn't care about >Fedora, >but to help with EPEL, you had to be a Fedora person. I am not sure on >the >status of all that any more (cause I'm delinquent and way less active >than >I probably should be), but if that's still the case, could that be >fixed in >any way? Now that CentOS is under the RH umbrella it seems like there >could >be an enterprise community contributor worflow/org/group thing. >(Apologies >if there already is, again, I'm just popping my head back up after a >while >away). > > >> <snip> >> > > >> But by 2013, virtually all Red Hat major accounts (at least all I was >> exposed to) _outlawed_ EPEL from being enabled at all, because of the >> endless conflicts with countless, various Red Hat products. >> >> So ... today, in 2016, it doesn't really matter. Back in 2012, I was >> more worried about EPEL becoming something customers cannot enable. >> But that's now the reality. >> >> FWIW, I haven't seen this reaction, but a few anecdotes are also not >data. I do think as the OS has become more commoditized and the >layered >products have become the differentiator, this is more of a truism >though, >and should be planned for. Most people I see now mirror parts of EPEL >and >their own packages and other stuff and slam that all together into >their >package sets. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >epel-devel mailing list >epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
