On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 4:29 PM Leon Fauster via epel-devel
<epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Am 02.12.21 um 19:49 schrieb Carl George:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:32 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> In our last EPEL Steering Committee meeting, Carl brought up a new proposal for
our epel9 / epel9-next rollout. Sometimes IRC isn't the best way to explain things
like that, it got a little confusing. Carl and I had a good video chat to clean up
confusion and talk about some pros and cons of the various proposals.
>> Here are the three proposals.
>>
>> * PLAN A
>> Plan A is basically what we've been working towards for the past couple of
months.
>> - launch epel9-next now-ish (ideally aligned with c9s launch promotion)
>> - After RHEL9 goes GA
>> -- perform a mass branch and mass rebuild to populate epel9
>> -- launch epel9 after RHEL9 GA is launched.
>>
>> ** Plan A Pros:
>> - epel9-next and epel9 are only set up once, and not changed
>> - ready to go now
>>
>> ** Plan A Cons:
>> - complexity and added work of mass branch and mass rebuild
>> - mass rebuild will have a moderate rate of failure due to buildroot differences
(unshipped devel packages)
>> - epel9 not available at rhel9 ga
>> - confusing messaging to packagers:
>> -- target epel9-next for ~6 months
>> -- after epel9 exists target that instead, only use epel9-next when needed
>> - confusing messaging to users:
>> -- use epel9-next now for c9s and rhel9 beta
>> -- use epel9-next temporarily at rhel9 launch but don’t leave it enabled
>> -- use epel9 primarily once it exists
>>
>>
>> * PLAN B
>> - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup.
>> - Setup epel9 using RHEL9 Beta for the buildroot.
>> -- Pull in any errata as it comes.
>> -- Use the repos you would for RHEL9 GA: AppStream, BaseOS, CRB
>> - Launch epel9 and epel9-next together (In 1-2 weeks).
>> - When RHEL9 GA is released, switch epel9 buildroot from RHEL9 Beta to RHEL9 GA
>>
>> ** Plan B Pros:
>> - simple messaging to packagers:
>> -- epel9 is the primary target, use epel9-next only when needed (same as
epel8-next)
>> - simple messaging to users:
>> -- use epel9 everywhere (epel-next-release is a recommends on c9s)
>> - no mass branching
>> - no mass rebuild
>> - No confusion from using the full CentOS Stream buildroot
>> -- epel9 buildroot will only have AppStream, BaseOS and CRB
>>
>> ** Plan B Cons:
>> - potential for large divergence between rhel9 beta and ga
>> - changing our messaging right before the launch
>>
>>
>> * PLAN C
>> - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup.
>> - setup up epel9 using c9s for the buildroot
>> -- Use the repos you would for RHEL9: AppStream, BaseOS, CRB
>> - freeze epel9 buildroot before c9s switches to 9.1 content
>> - launch epel9 and epel9-next together (1-2 weeks)
>> - switch epel9 buildroot from frozen c9s to rhel9 ga later
>>
>> ** Plan C Pros:
>> - simple messaging to packagers:
>> -- epel9 is the primary target, use epel9-next only when needed (same as
epel8-next)
>> - simple messaging to users:
>> -- use epel9 everywhere (epel-next-release is a recommends on c9s)
>> - no mass branching
>> - no mass rebuild
>> - No confusion from using the full CentOS Stream buildroot
>> -- epel9 buildroot will only have AppStream, BaseOS and CRB
>>
>> ** Plan C Cons:
>> - potential infrastructure complexity of freezing the epel9 buildroot
>> - changing our messaging right before the launch
>>
>>
>> Please let us know what you think.
>> If we do choose to go with Plan B or C we will need to make the decision fairly
quickly.
>>
>> Troy
>
> Closing the loop here, at the 2021-11-24 EPEL Steering Committee
> meeting we voted and selected plan C.
>
>
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2021-11-24-21.00.html
>
> We are in the process of finishing up the EPEL9 implementation and
> plan to launch EPEL9 and EPEL9 Next together with a formal
> announcement very soon. Until then you may notice parts of that
> implementation coming online (repositories, release packages, etc.)
> but we recommend waiting until the announcement for official
> instructions.
>
That sounds nice! Just curious - what indicates the switch to 9.1
content? Any sample point(s) that indicates such "branch"?
There are none. C9S is a continuously delivered distribution which
RHEL is derived from. Equivalency to distinct RHEL minor releases at
point-in-time intervals isn't something that Stream does.
In talking with Carl directly, he was using this as shorthand for
instituting a freeze of the EPEL buildroot in preparation of
solidifying it for a RHEL GA. RHEL's release cadence is publicly
documented, so my understanding is that the EPEL team will do some of
their own projections from the spring/fall RHEL release cadence
(typically May and Nov) and work backwards to what they feel is a safe
point in time to solidify.
josh