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.