On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:25:10 -0500
Greg Swift <gregswift(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If an additional repo is decided to be the way to go, what would it
> take to develop a mostly 'complete' list along with a list of existing
> howtos or subject matter experts that can be referenced by the poor
> soul(s) who volunteer to do the work?
Hard to say until we had such a list. ;)
Fun ;)
So that was partially intended as "who not already responding do i
need to poke and prod to try and find this out?"
And if you are one of those wonderful people, consider yourself poked
and prodded :)
> > And I'm sure there's other issues... it would not be
at all easy,
> > and I would prefer to avoid it.
>
> understandably. although at this point I'm wondering a few things:
>
> 1: since multiple bits have brought this up and no one has come up
> with a better solution, is this the way we need to go?
I'm still not sure. ;)
> 2: would a single EPEL-supplemental/rolling/fubar meet the needs of
> both of these paths?
I don't know. I'd love to hear from those that have cases not handled
by current EPEL.
me too
> 3: is it possible to do the numbered packages in the same git
> repositories without creating a whole separate package path? is it
> reasonable?
I don't know. I guess it would need to be 'epel6-rolling' and
'epel5-rolling' as seperate branches in git.
so ...
*insert tongue in cheek*
i've now decided we should use REPEL as the name. maybe that would
resolve the 'i used it and through it was stable' issue
*remove tongue from cheek*