Updates next steps
 

Hey Jesse,

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:02 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
>>
>> 1. Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in
>> stable releases
>>
>>
>
> This gets pretty difficult to manage if we want to insert any testing of
> the proposed update set to be pushed out. *It increases the number of
> potential push sets, per release, which increases the complexity quite a
> bit in the depchecking routines.

What if we defer the testing part for now? Seems like something we
could add in later once we get the rhythm tweaked.

Can you explain a bit about what you mean by "increases the number of
potential push sets"? I'm not sure I follow.

Thanks,
Jon
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.


On 4/21/10, William Jon McCann <william.jon.mccann@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> We discussed this a bit on IRC yesterday but I wanted to bring it up
> on the list too.

shouldn't this be on the 'users' list? does it not affect other users?

>
> Now that we have rough consensus that we should try to limit the
> volume of "pointless" updates, what is next?

we do? and what constitutes 'pointless'?
>
> I propose we look at two things right away:
>
> 1. Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in
> stable releases
>

how is 'critical' defined? what is this 'stable release' ( as opposed
to 'release' )?

> 2. Establish norms or rules that limit the types of changes in stable
> releases to ensure the releases remain stable
>

what steps would be taken to ensure that this 'stability' does not
interfere with 'incubate(ing) innovative new technologies'?
>
> Thoughts? What is the best way to accomplish these two things?
>
> Jon
> --


charles zeitler



Love is the law, love under will.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

Am Mittwoch, den 21.04.2010, 12:02 -0400 schrieb William Jon McCann:
> Hey folks,
>
> We discussed this a bit on IRC yesterday but I wanted to bring it up
> on the list too.
>
> Now that we have rough consensus that we should try to limit the
> volume of "pointless" updates, what is next?

I wonder who is "we" and why this is discussed on the desktop list and
not in f-d-l.

Regards,
Christoph

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 23:15 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.04.2010, 12:02 -0400 schrieb William Jon McCann:
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > We discussed this a bit on IRC yesterday but I wanted to bring it up
> > on the list too.
> >
> > Now that we have rough consensus that we should try to limit the
> > volume of "pointless" updates, what is next?
>
> I wonder who is "we" and why this is discussed on the desktop list and
> not in f-d-l.

Indeed. I believe FESCo has approved a policy on enhanced *testing* of
candidate updates, but that's all. I don't believe there is a consensus
on restricting updates by type, or grouping them.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:43 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:02 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> >
> > 1. Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in
> > stable releases
> >
> >
>
> This gets pretty difficult to manage if we want to insert any testing of
> the proposed update set to be pushed out. It increases the number of
> potential push sets, per release, which increases the complexity quite a
> bit in the depchecking routines.
>
> I'm not saying it's something we shouldn't do, I'm just saying that it's
> going to make something significantly more complex to manage.

I don't understand this, tbh. If anything, doing more testing for each
set of updates would seem to benefit from pushing updates less
frequently, since it gives us more time to actually test them. Is that
not the case ?

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 23:15 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, den 21.04.2010, 12:02 -0400 schrieb William Jon McCann:
>> > Hey folks,
>> >
>> > We discussed this a bit on IRC yesterday but I wanted to bring it up
>> > on the list too.
>> >
>> > Now that we have rough consensus that we should try to limit the
>> > volume of "pointless" updates, what is next?
>>
>> I wonder who is "we" and why this is discussed on the desktop list and
>> not in f-d-l.
>
> Indeed. I believe FESCo has approved a policy on enhanced *testing* of
> candidate updates, but that's all. I don't believe there is a consensus
> on restricting updates by type, or grouping them.

So, that's cool. I take it back - let's not limit pointless updates -
it is certainly a silly idea. ;)

Jokes aside, this is what Jesse and ajax told me on IRC that we (the
project) had decided. So I was just repeating it here.

Most of the time when I say "we" on this list I mean the people who
are interested in designing and defining the user experience of this
desktop thing. Some of the time I refer to people who have some
expertise or opinions I respect in the area of experience design.
Other times I mean "I". Which one I mean will depend on the
situation. If that is too confusing then just assume I mean "I",
think carefully about the matter, and challenge me on it in a
constructive way. (where constructive means "how you'd do it if you
had to and your reputation depended on it").

We can continue to have discussions about having discussions about
making great things or we can just make great things. Believe it or
not given the opportunity and the will - I know we can. But dithering
is death.

It is pretty clear that we want to make the user experience around
updates better for our users - now we need to do it. There will be
people who don't agree (at least until we demonstrate it is better by
actually doing it) but we need to do it anyway.

If possible, I'd really like to keep the discussion in this thread
related to ideation on how we can accomplish the two things I
mentioned. From that we can develop a proposal that includes the why.

Thanks,
Jon
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.


On 4/21/10, William Jon McCann <william.jon.mccann@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> So, that's cool. I take it back - let's not limit pointless updates -
> it is certainly a silly idea. ;)
>
right, it is silly- we should _eliminate_ pointless updates.


> Jokes aside, this is what Jesse and ajax told me on IRC that we (the
> project) had decided. So I was just repeating it here.

that's a pretty big 'we' !

>
> Most of the time when I say "we" on this list I mean the people who
> are interested in designing and defining the user experience of this
> desktop thing.

which desktop?
>
> If possible, I'd really like to keep the discussion in this thread
> related to ideation on how we can accomplish the two things I
> mentioned. From that we can develop a proposal that includes the why.
>
i might be able to help with ideation, fueled with some answers.

> Thanks,
> Jon
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
>


charles zeitler





Love is the law, love under will.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

On 04/22/2010 08:32 AM, charles zeitler wrote:
>> Most of the time when I say "we" on this list I mean the people who
>> are interested in designing and defining the user experience of this
>> desktop thing.
>>
> which desktop?
>

All the discussions in this list are about the default desktop
environment in Fedora: GNOME. KDE etc have their own mailing lists.

Rahul


--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

Am Mittwoch, den 21.04.2010, 20:33 -0400 schrieb William Jon McCann:
> Hi,
>
> So, that's cool. I take it back - let's not limit pointless updates -
> it is certainly a silly idea. ;)

IF they are pointless, they should be limited to 0. If they are just
optional, there are still users who want the latest and the greatest
versions. During the whole discussion about the update process we
learned that this is one of the main reasons why many people prefer
Fedora over other distributions. If this is pointless, I'm afraid we are
a pointless distro. ;)

> Jokes aside, this is what Jesse and ajax told me on IRC that we (the
> project) had decided. So I was just repeating it here.

AFAIR "the project" has never decided anything like this. I am not
saying that I'm against this idea, I'm just a little surprised.

> Most of the time when I say "we" on this list I mean the people who
> are interested in designing and defining the user experience of this
> desktop thing.

You mean this GNOME desktop thing, right? Please stop using the word
"desktop" as a synonym for "GNOME".

As this topic not only affects the (GNOME) desktop bug the whole
distribution, I really think that it should not be discussed on the
desktop list.

> Some of the time I refer to people who have some
> expertise or opinions I respect in the area of experience design.
> Other times I mean "I". Which one I mean will depend on the
> situation. If that is too confusing then just assume I mean "I",
> think carefully about the matter, and challenge me on it in a
> constructive way. (where constructive means "how you'd do it if you
> had to and your reputation depended on it").
>
> We can continue to have discussions about having discussions about
> making great things or we can just make great things. Believe it or
> not given the opportunity and the will - I know we can. But dithering
> is death.
>
> It is pretty clear that we want to make the user experience around
> updates better for our users - now we need to do it. There will be
> people who don't agree (at least until we demonstrate it is better by
> actually doing it) but we need to do it anyway.

Sorry, but to me this attitude sounds arrogant. People "just doing
something" - especially GNOME people - is not how community works and
often is the source of a very unpleasant update experience.

Think of the recent hal update that broke every desktop but GNOME in
F13. It was not announced (at least not for F13) and it was pushed after
the beta freeze only for the GNOME people to finish their hal removal
feature. Is this your idea of just doing "great things"?

What is great for GNOME or for you as a maintainer is not necessarily
great for others. This is why there needs to be a discussion instead of
"just doing it".

Regards,
Christoph

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Updates next steps
 

On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:27 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.04.2010, 20:33 -0400 schrieb William Jon McCann:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So, that's cool. I take it back - let's not limit pointless updates -
> > it is certainly a silly idea. ;)
>
> IF they are pointless, they should be limited to 0. If they are just
> optional, there are still users who want the latest and the greatest
> versions. During the whole discussion about the update process we
> learned that this is one of the main reasons why many people prefer
> Fedora over other distributions.

I think the one thing we learned is that Kevin can write more emails and
shout louder than anybody else. I challenge you to find a single Fedora
user who only uses Fedora because it can produce more untested updates
than any other distribution.

> Sorry, but to me this attitude sounds arrogant. People "just doing
> something" - especially GNOME people - is not how community works and
> often is the source of a very unpleasant update experience.

Sure, doing something works by gathering a rough consensus between the
major parties and then start doing something. Waiting for the great
world-spanning consensus of everybody is a recipe for endless flamewars
and doing nothing.

> Think of the recent hal update that broke every desktop but GNOME in
> F13. It was not announced (at least not for F13) and it was pushed
> after the beta freeze only for the GNOME people to finish their hal
> removal feature. Is this your idea of just doing "great things"?

I'm pretty sure we can find one or two broken update that you have
pushed in the past as well. Do you really think we should sink to that
level of discussion ?




--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop