On 15.08.2007 19:32, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Hi all, so the (only) package I maintain, remind, has released a new
version (from 3.0.24 to 3.1.0). There are some new features and some
bug fixes:
http://www.bludgeon.org/~rayvd/WHATSNEW
However, per the update guidelines and policies, it doesn't appear to
meet the criteria as an update that should be pushed (although maybe to
the 5.1 and 4.6 releases) -- none of the bug fixes are "critical"
really.
From this description I'd say: don't update.
That said, from observing the build reports, it seems as if a lot of
people are pushing new upstream releases of their packages into the
current version of EPEL (updates, not the new builds). It doesn't seem
that all of these updates are in harmony with the update policies.
I noticed that also and put a "poke those people and point them to the
EPEL update guidelines" on my todo-list.
The current behavior might be acceptable for the current phase where
EPEL is still young, but if people really want a repo that ships more
up2date packages I'd say we start EPEL-rolling in parallel with
EPEL-stable (e.g. a repo on top of epel-stable).
A repo where some packages stay stable while others are updated to the
latest and greatest is a mix that won't make people happy, as those that
are those that are interested in a "a stable base" and those that want
"latest and greatest" both don't get what they want.
IOW: we should pick a side (and we did), as something in between is bad.
[...]
Cu
thl