On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:58, Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 6:50 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Carl George wrote:
> > To solve this problem, I am proposing that we create a new repository
> called
> > EPEL 8 Next.
> >
> > - built against CentOS 8 Stream
> > - opt-in for packagers (must request epel8-next dist-git branch)
> > - opt-in for users (part of epel-release but disabled by default)
> > - used *with* epel8, not *instead of*
> >
> I agree with all of that. I only don't like the name. Why EPEL 8 Next? If
> it
> is to be use with Stream, why don't we call it EPEL 8 Stream? I think the
> meaning of the repository would be easier to understand.
>
I was thinking the same thing. EPEL stream is so much easier for users to
understand.
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.
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'.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.