is it okay to push 0.7.3 transifex update

[Rakesh Pandit]

Hello list,

I would need approval for importing transifex 0.7.x for EPEL 5. As per
ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1455
0.7.x transifex is required for infrastruture update.

For this, I would need approval from steering committee ? (do I need
to fill in any ticket, in case yes please point out)

I think I can just import it for infrastruture repo, which I am
_guessing_ is maintained separatly ? But, in case there is no
objection in pushing an update to EPEL 5. I will like a vote ?

I have an srpm at:
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/misc/transifex-0.7.3-1.el5.src.rpm

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:01:58 +0530
Rakesh Pandit  wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I would need approval for importing transifex 0.7.x for EPEL 5. As per
> ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1455
> 0.7.x transifex is required for infrastruture update.

Infrastructure has their own repo, so it could just go there. ;)
> For this, I would need approval from steering committee ? (do I need
> to fill in any ticket, in case yes please point out)

It depends. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies

Does this update change ABI/interfaces from the existing EPEL version? 
Does it require manual changes to config files?
If so, then please don't update it.

If it doesn't, then you can build it and make sure it spends at least 2
weeks in updates-testing before pushing it to stable.
> I think I can just import it for infrastruture repo, which I am
> _guessing_ is maintained separatly ? But, in case there is no
> objection in pushing an update to EPEL 5. I will like a vote ?
>
> I have an srpm at:
> http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/misc/transifex-0.7.3-1.el5.src.rpm

Ask over in #fedora-admin on irc or see the fedora-infrastructure list
for that.

kevin

[Rakesh Pandit]

2009/12/24 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:01:58 +0530
> Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I would need approval for importing transifex 0.7.x for EPEL 5. As per
> > ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1455
> > 0.7.x transifex is required for infrastruture update.
>
> Infrastructure has their own repo, so it could just go there. ;)

[..]

Thanks Kevin, I had a chat with Toshio and it has been pushed to infra.fp.o .
> > For this, I would need approval from steering committee ? (do I need
> > to fill in any ticket, in case yes please point out)
>
> It depends. See:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies
>
> Does this update change ABI/interfaces from the existing EPEL version?
> Does it require manual changes to config files?
> If so, then please don't update it.

[..]

I will take back my suggestion for upgrading as migration of instance
running older version to new version would not be simple (may break).
Will wait for how cleanly infra migration works first and then think
over it.

Thanks,

[Mike McGrath]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:01:58 +0530
> Rakesh Pandit  wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I would need approval for importing transifex 0.7.x for EPEL 5. As per
> > ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1455
> > 0.7.x transifex is required for infrastruture update.
>
> Infrastructure has their own repo, so it could just go there. ;)

Every time we do this though it feels like a failure.

-Mike

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:40:24 -0600 (CST)
Mike McGrath  wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:01:58 +0530
> > Rakesh Pandit  wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > I would need approval for importing transifex 0.7.x for EPEL 5.
> > > As per ticket
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1455 0.7.x
> > > transifex is required for infrastruture update.
> >
> > Infrastructure has their own repo, so it could just go there. ;)
>
> Every time we do this though it feels like a failure.

Yeah. ;(

I fear our best will be to try and educate upstreams and see if they
can take into consideration doing updates as a priority.

As a side note, I think it still might be a good idea to maintain a
file/wiki page listing each thing thats in the infrastructure repo and
why it's there.

kevin