On 01/14/2016 07:35 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Honza Horak <hhorak at redhat.com> wrote: >> #topic review of how development of new scls is working >> rought proposal: building packages -> candidate -> sanity testing -> >> testing -> [wait till rhscl is released] -> tag released -> sign&release >> - usual tagging process: tag -candidate -> [sanity testing] -> tag >> -testing -> [better testing] -> tag -released -> sign&release >> - how it will be done for collections that gonna be released in RHSCL in >> the future? >> - idea: such collections should stay in -testing until they are released >> in RHSCL -- bad idea? shout now. > > What's the scope of discussion here in terms of "sclo-*" SCLs and "rh-*" SCLs? > > For "sclo-*" SCLs, I'd expect the RHSCL release cycle to be entirely irrelevant. Yes, they may be theoretically influence in cases the sclo-* SCLs depend on some rh-* SCLs -- in that case their release is depended on RHSCL. > For "rh-*" SCLs, having them remain in -testing until the downstream > release (so they become generally available to RHEL & CentOS users at > the same time) seems reasonable. > > So if someone wanted to take an existing rh-* package and turn it into > an sclo-* package that could be updated independently of the RHSCL > release cycle, they'd be free to do that. Yes, in case someone would like to include different set of packages or deliver different version, then it effectively become a new SCL, that needs to be treated that way. Honza