EPEL EpSCO Email Meeting:

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:08:34 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:

> So in todays (2014-08-29) meeting, we wanted to move the various
> policy discussions to email so that people could take their time to
> reply and also to allow for people who could not attend time to
> respond.

Right. 

> Going from the web-page
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL-faster-repo-ideas the following
> items are listed (with additions I added while writing this email.)
> 
> I would like to start with the EpSCO governance to just get that out
> of the way and then move to current rules as we see them. I can act
> as secretary to make sure that changes discussed here are put in
> place on the wiki or other places.
> 
> Policy questions
> 
>    - EpSCO governance.
>       - Lifetime of initial committee (9 months?)
>       - Replacement of any exiting members (replacement by formal
> vote, etc).
>       - Size of committee (4 members? 5 members?)
>       - Meeting rules (follow
>       https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Steering_Committee
>       )

I'm happy with whatever other people want. I think making things super
formal just causes more problems. I think we agreed on 4 members for
now, we can add by vote of those folks, we should try and meet weekly.

> 
>    - How many repos? (examples below)
>       - epel,
>          - epel-test
>       - epel-rolling
>          - epel-rolling-test ?
>       - epel-edge ?
>          - epel-edge-test ?

There's some thought from folks about doing a per point release repos. 
I added some comments asking for more details on that idea. 

If repos we add as fast moving/whatever they may not need/want testing
repos. 

>    - What would faster moving mean?

Good question. Perhaps folks could list out some example packages and
stacks that aren't happy with epel as it is and we could better come up
with use cases to help those?

> 
>    - Would packages in this be able to conflict with epel packages?
> Base packages?
 
> 
>    - When would incompatible changes be allowed in each branch?
> 
> 
>    - Different guidelines for specs/packages per branch?

I would REALLY like to avoid this. EPEL leverages the excellent (IMHO)
Fedora guidelines. If we go off and do our own thing we are doing our
users a disservice. 

>    - When would a package be expired or removed?
> 
> 
>    - What are the rules for EPEL packages currently?

All Fedora guidelines +  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
> 
>    - Currently packages require of 2 weeks in EPEL-testing before
> promotion to EPEL.
>       - Can this be changed to 1 week?

I guess I'd be ok moving it to a week. 

>       - What Constant Integration would be needed to give auto-karma?
> 
> 
>    - How to integrate packages shepherded by CentOS (or other SIGS)
> which may conflict with EPEL packages?

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/attachments/20140904/e9ef89f2/attachment.sig>