When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps: 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other ones required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
ones required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
Additional notes: This is not meant in any form as a negative statement about modules. Modules can be made to work but not with the current build system Fedora and thus EPEL uses. The problem is that trying to get it to work with the existing system is too high maintenance for the resources available. Different tooling and workflow patterns would be needed which require dedicated effort and resources which aren't available.
On 31. 08. 22 23:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other ones
required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
10. Drop https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/blob/epel8/f/epel-testing-mo...
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:19 AM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
On 31. 08. 22 23:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
hope
that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
modules
as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with
a
muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
even run
on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is
normally
built have been tried for several years by different people but have not
worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
not
worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
that
modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any
other ones
required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
2.5 - move epel-modular.repo and epel-testing-modular.repo to it's own sub-package of epel-repos-modular
- Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
/pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular
and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
modules
- Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
- Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
10. Drop https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/blob/epel8/f/epel-testing-mo... from epel-repos-modular
Troy
On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:25, Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:19 AM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
On 31. 08. 22 23:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with
the hope
that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
modules
as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
with a
muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
even run
on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is
normally
built have been tried for several years by different people but have
not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL
has not
worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
that
modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any
other ones
required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
2.5 - move epel-modular.repo and epel-testing-modular.repo to it's own sub-package of epel-repos-modular
- Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
/pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular
and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
modules
- Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
- Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
- Drop
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/blob/epel8/f/epel-testing-mo... from epel-repos-modular
I agree with Miro and your changes and will put a ticket into the pagure to start the ball rolling.
Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
V Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:08:59PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a):
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
ones required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
I heard a concern what to do with systems which use EPEL modules. What will happen after the modules disappear from EPEL repositories?
Thanks to fails-safe machanism in DNF, the metadata for enabled module streams will be preserved in DNF's local copy. Thus users who have installed the modules will have them visible in "dnf module list" output even after removing them from EPEL repository. So far good.
Someone proposed that EPEL should actively try to disable the EPEL modules. Miro mentioned that the Fedora already did it once https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/c/bfc4c31d8f625d4963a8169c9ba65686da7a4ce0?branch=f31 by editing DNF configuration from an RPM scriptlet.
Question is whether EPEL should do it. If EPEL did it, users would lose their modules and, I think, DNF would start mixing modular and nonmodular packages. That could cause problems when upgading those systems. One would need to perform "dnf distrosync --allowerasing" to repair the system.
There could also be a problem if RHEL decided to deliver a module stream with an identical name. EPEL would then keep disabling the RHEL module.
I believe it's safer not to actively disable the streams on user's systems.
What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the module summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module list" could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal wouldn't see anything. We would have keep to modular repository available forever. Probably the idea of the notice is not worth of it.
Any opinions how to deal with obsoleting the installed modules? What currently does EPEL when a maintainer decides to drop a (nonmodular) package?
-- Petr
On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 10:04, Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com wrote:
V Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:08:59PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a):
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using
RHEL
modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended
up
with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install
or
even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people
but
have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
ones required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that
for
that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
I heard a concern what to do with systems which use EPEL modules. What will happen after the modules disappear from EPEL repositories?
Thanks to fails-safe machanism in DNF, the metadata for enabled module streams will be preserved in DNF's local copy. Thus users who have installed the modules will have them visible in "dnf module list" output even after removing them from EPEL repository. So far good.
Someone proposed that EPEL should actively try to disable the EPEL modules. Miro mentioned that the Fedora already did it once < https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/c/bfc4c31d8f625d4963a8169c...
by editing DNF configuration from an RPM scriptlet.
Question is whether EPEL should do it. If EPEL did it, users would lose their modules and, I think, DNF would start mixing modular and nonmodular packages. That could cause problems when upgading those systems. One would need to perform "dnf distrosync --allowerasing" to repair the system.
There could also be a problem if RHEL decided to deliver a module stream with an identical name. EPEL would then keep disabling the RHEL module.
I believe it's safer not to actively disable the streams on user's systems.
I agree on this and would not want that to happen. The module metadata needs to stay there
What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the module summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module list" could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal wouldn't see anything. We would have keep to modular repository available forever. Probably the idea of the notice is not worth of it.
Any opinions how to deal with obsoleting the installed modules? What currently does EPEL when a maintainer decides to drop a (nonmodular) package?
It disappears from the mirrors but a user could grab it from koji or if it was 'archived' in the /pub/archive snapshots which are done around the time a . is released. Most of the modules would still be there in the /pub/archive snapshot and a final version would be there also as step 3.
-- Petr _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Sep 7, 2022 9:04:57 AM Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com:
What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the module summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module list" could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal wouldn't see anything. We would have keep to modular repository available forever. Probably the idea of the notice is not worth of it.
I think it's worth adding notices to the module descriptions. We could also add scriptlets to the old modular packages to print warnings if we really wanted. -- Best,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His
I am curios - Is there any benefit of the proposal for end users? I think that end users are the most important part of the chain - be honest they are only reason why developers exist.
Somehow I feel that we are going to resolve infrastructure problem (missing feature, support for maintainers, stability, ...) but the bill will be paid (they will experience problem, breaking changes, change in delivery chain) by our users.
We have to consider that they are not participating on such a discussion, the cannot vote FESCO and so on. They did not decide to ship modules in EPEL and probably they adopted them because they use the content of EPEL. We have to also consider that they can have their own content for modules. If we will remove modules in the middle of the release cycle they will suffer for to reasons. It can create some issues and simply it is unexpected change. We will lose their trust and may be they will move to another Linux distribution. I want to say that the proposal sound like a win for maintainers (in short term), but in long term FEDORA and RHEL will lose a lot.
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 02:56, Jaroslav Mracek jmracek@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I am curios - Is there any benefit of the proposal for end users? I think that end users are the most important part of the chain - be honest they are only reason why developers exist.
The benefit to end-users is that we aren't lying to them anymore. We aren't providing them with a working service, our modules can at times stop RHEL updates from working and we have modules we can't stop publishing which do not work or are not installable. We are also not improving the modularity build system in a way that helps those users and have not in the last 2+ years.
In this case, I feel honesty is the best policy and stop 'delivering' broken software we can't fix.
Somehow I feel that we are going to resolve infrastructure problem (missing feature, support for maintainers, stability, ...) but the bill will be paid (they will experience problem, breaking changes, change in delivery chain) by our users.
We have to consider that they are not participating on such a discussion, the cannot vote FESCO and so on. They did not decide to ship modules in EPEL and probably they adopted them because they use the content of EPEL. We have to also consider that they can have their own content for modules. If we will remove modules in the middle of the release cycle they will suffer for to reasons. It can create some issues and simply it is unexpected change. We will lose their trust and may be they will move to another Linux distribution. I want to say that the proposal sound like a win for maintainers (in short term), but in long term FEDORA and RHEL will lose a lot.
I agree on that and feel we will need to write documentation to help unmess up systems we have allowed to be messed up. For people who have modules already installed, mirror-manager will still point to the archived versions on dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/epel/8/modularity. They just won't get any newer ones or updates. I realize this might be 'broken' for some people, but I do not see it any worse for various default modules in RHEL-8 that are no longer getting any support there. You have to actively find a non-default version of the package to get updates for that stream from Red Hat.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 09:54, Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 02:56, Jaroslav Mracek jmracek@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I am curios - Is there any benefit of the proposal for end users? I think that end users are the most important part of the chain - be honest they are only reason why developers exist.
The benefit to end-users is that we aren't lying to them anymore. We aren't providing them with a working service, our modules can at times stop RHEL updates from working and we have modules we can't stop publishing which do not work or are not installable. We are also not improving the modularity build system in a way that helps those users and have not in the last 2+ years.
In this case, I feel honesty is the best policy and stop 'delivering' broken software we can't fix.
I also believe that a distribution of modular sets of packages is possible but not inside of the EPEL/Fedora ecosystem. EPEL 'works' by relying on Fedora rules, volunteers, and infrastructure to accomplish its mission. However there is little time or energy to deal with anything that does not fit into the every 3 month crunch in Fedora of Beta/Release/Beta/Release/Beta/etc Many of the changes to make modularity work would require breaking that cycle for some time and there is little appetite in the main community for that. Trying to keep modularity in EPEL says 'we will get to it sometime' when we aren't.
I found it useful to ship the nextcloud package as a module, particularly in EPEL, but if after multiple years there really are only 12 packages in the repo and even those may or may not work then that is a pretty clear argument for eating the sunk cost & abandoning the idea.
-- Christopher
On Friday, September 9, 2022 Christopher Engelhard wrote:
I found it useful to ship the nextcloud package as a module, particularly in EPEL, but if after multiple years there really are only 12 packages in the repo and even those may or may not work then that is a pretty clear argument for eating the sunk cost & abandoning the idea.
Yes, the nextcloud modular packages that were in EPEL were uninstallable. Also, you could still include multiple versions of Nextcloud in EPEL. You'd just create separate non-modular nextcloud22, nextcloud23, etc. packages that Conflict with each other.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
ones required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
Due to the year end freezes that many Enterprise consumers are starting, I would like to propose the change to the timeline
2b. Make changes to epel-release so that EPEL modular is no longer turned on by default with README. 2c. Document configuration changes that would be needed for sites mirroring using Enterprise patch management systems. 3a. Start regular Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8 3b. and pointing mirrormanager to that for that
We can do steps up to 3a. and then start on 3b and other items after February 1st 2023.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:50 AM Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
ones required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
Due to the year end freezes that many Enterprise consumers are starting, I would like to propose the change to the timeline
2b. Make changes to epel-release so that EPEL modular is no longer turned on by default with README. 2c. Document configuration changes that would be needed for sites mirroring using Enterprise patch management systems. 3a. Start regular Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8 3b. and pointing mirrormanager to that for that
We can do steps up to 3a. and then start on 3b and other items after February 1st 2023.
Just letting people know, adjusting the timeline of the modularity will be first thing on the agenda in this weeks EPEL Steering Committee meeting. If we are going to extend the cut off date, we need to decide that fast. If we are not, I need to get the word out broader than I have.
I personally think we should extend it to sometime in February. Maybe February 15th. Middle of a month on a wednesday.
Troy
On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 14:34, Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:50 AM Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.
At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
Steps:
- Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any
other ones required. 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for that 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
Due to the year end freezes that many Enterprise consumers are starting, I would like to propose the change to the timeline
2b. Make changes to epel-release so that EPEL modular is no longer turned on by default with README. 2c. Document configuration changes that would be needed for sites mirroring using Enterprise patch management systems. 3a. Start regular Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8 3b. and pointing mirrormanager to that for that
We can do steps up to 3a. and then start on 3b and other items after February 1st 2023.
Just letting people know, adjusting the timeline of the modularity will be first thing on the agenda in this weeks EPEL Steering Committee meeting. If we are going to extend the cut off date, we need to decide that fast. If we are not, I need to get the word out broader than I have.
I personally think we should extend it to sometime in February. Maybe February 15th. Middle of a month on a wednesday.
I agree. On a lot of reflection and some 'what the hell were you thinking?', that is the earliest I can see this not breaking our enterprise customers.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Christopher Engelhard -
Jaroslav Mracek -
Maxwell G -
Miro Hrončok -
Petr Pisar -
Stephen Smoogen -
Troy Dawson