Re: package stability

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 04:21:52PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
>  Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  >Mike McGrath (mmcgrath(a)redhat.com) said: 
>  >  
>  >>>Sure. But I'm not sure I want an ISV saying "To run our app,
>  >>>please install XYZ from EPEL."
>  >>>      
>  >>Why not?  I think it'd be a great vehicle to get these companies
>  >>involved.
>  >
>  >If XYZ is something *not* maintained by that ISV, and Joe Packager
>  >goes AWOL?
>  >
>  Hopefully the ISV will have signed up to be a co-maintainer of that
>  package.  It won't work every time but corporate sponsorship of
>  these packages could be a very good thing.  I think its worth a shot
>  anyway. 
How about making that part of EPEL guidelines? If an ISV wants to
point to EPEL for resources for his app, then he *needs* to sign up as
a comaintainer with at least the responsibilities on testing his app
against the lastest EPEL every now and then.

There are similar ISV guidelines for RHEL updates, we could pick them
up, especially the timeline parts of them, and adjust them for EPEL.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net