On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:50:39PM -0300, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
On 21/8/20 19:06, Troy Dawson wrote:
> C) Drop playground. Say it was an interesting experiment and
we
> learned stuff, but shut it down.
> (and clean up the package.cfg files as part of shutting it down)
>
> D)
> 1 - Manual builds only. No package.cfg files. No automatic builds.
> 2 - Assume playground depends on epel8.
> 3 - Use CentOS 8 Stream to build against.
>
> I am leaning towards option D.
> We've already got all the playground infrastructure setup. I don't
> want to waste that. So, although I said option C in the meeting, that
> doesn't mean I want it, I was just stating it was an option.
I like option D too, looks like a more polished version of option B
Do we have any data here?
Are stream changes breaking epel packages so that they need rebuilds
often?
It will mean that if someone wants to use playground to test some large
change in epel, they will have to find people who also enable stream to
test it most likely?
Do we know that many/any people are consuming stream all the time?
We also don't have much way to say 'if you enable epel8-playground you
have to enable stream repos also'.
I guess I don't think the yummy to trouble ratio is good enough here to
justify the trouble of enabling stream. Can you expand on why this is
good/what it gets us?
kevin