On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:34 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I can see two big reasons for not using Stream in the name as the starting point of a
proposal:
1. There is always a complaint that Red Hat related projects jump onto a single name to
the point of overuse. Atomic, -Shift, -Stack, and a couple others have been ones in just
recent memory. Participants in the various communities feel usually railroaded to use a
brand even if they don't think it wise.
I don't think that's as much of an issue here since this would be
specifically targeting CentOS Stream. It's not really a name so much
as a version in string form.
2.EPEL has a hard enough time getting Fedora contributions with
various community members seeing it as a useless diversion. Putting Stream in the title
will just add to the 'why isn't EPEL just in CentOS already so I don't have to
look at those ugly named branches in MY package'.
Warning: heresy and rampant speculation ahead!
It's too early to do this now, but I think there's a compelling case
to be made for shifting EPEL from Fedora to Stream at some point. This
would be dependent on getting a solid contributor community
established for Stream, of course. Realistically, I'd say we're a few
years away from making that transition, but I think the Stream
community would be a more natural fit. If CentOS Stream had existed
when EPEL started, I don't think we'd have made EPEL a part of Fedora,
despite the good points Matthew makes below. (In other words, it's not
a foregone conclusion that EPEL should be a part of Stream, and there
are reasons not to do that, but there are also reasons to do that.
That's a problem for Future Us to solve.)
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:28 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
So, the distinction is: EPEL is in Fedora because it's direct community
ownership and maintenance. CentOS Stream is explicitly Red Hat controlled
with a "patches appreciated!" approach. It's valuable to have both, but I
also like the clarity of the separation.
See comments above (just leaving this quote in for reference)
This all leads me to think that actually what we want is not
"EPEL Stream"
but "EPEL for Stream". (epel-for-stream? epel-4-stream? epel4s? no not that
last one for sure.)
2EPEL2Streamious. In seriousness, EPEL 8 is Extra Packages for
Enterprise Linux 8, right? So we can go one of two ways:
1. Loosen the definition of what "Enterprise Linux" means (after all,
it's not EPRHEL...) and go with something like "EPEL 8 Stream" or
"EPEL Stream 8" (I'm inclined toward the latter)
2. Keep the pattern and call it "EPCS 8" for "Extra Packages for
CentOS Stream 8". That has the benefit of being more clear what we're
targeting at the cost of potential changes in tooling and adding YAA
(yet another acronym) to the mix. (I say "acronym" here because it
would clearly be pronounced as "epics", not the initialism "Eee pee
cee ess")
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis