FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:36 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This is only working for you because KDE is a high-visibility project
> and can mobilize resources even outside the distro normal schedule. The
> other packages you talk of could benefit if QA was cheap and plentiful
> but QA is not cheap and plentiful and pretending we do not have resource
> constrains and can afford no to forget about planification will not
> change this fact.

Those packages which can't drum up as much QA are niche packages where
usually you can get away with just pushing whatever you want whenever you
want. Extras worked like that all the time, it didn't even have a testing
repo at all (!), but it still worked.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:00 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Once upon a time, Juha Tuomala <Juha.Tuomala@iki.fi> said:
> For note, I'm among those who don't want feature upgrades into
> stable fedora release. If you're so happy to chase latest and
> gratest, feel free to do it in your sf.net private repo.

By the same token, if you want rolling update releases, feel free to do
it in your own private repo. See how well that argument works?
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:18 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Juha Tuomala wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps.
>>
>> No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument
>> for doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit
>> from version upgrades during a release.
>
> In my undestanding, KDE makes new feature releases (b releases) and
> bug fix releases (c releases), where versions are kde-a.b.c.
>
> How is that 'one strong argument for doing things this way' in
> fedora where new features are added into new Fn releases?

The strong argument is that KDE and Fedora release cycles are not in sync
and our users would thus have to wait months for the new KDE.

> I talked to rdieter about this and said that part of the problem
> is that not all of the bug fixes end to bugfix releases and would
> be thus ommitted from stable fedora releases. Being a pure KDE
> upstream problem, it should be solved there and would certainly
> get more focus if fedora would start enforcing it.

I doubt it. Other distros are already much more conservative than we are,
that doesn't prevent this from happening. So that's another argument for the
upgrades.

In fact, KDE upstream doesn't even provide any further bugfix releases for
the old branch after releasing the new one, they just don't have the
resources to do that. So upgrading is the only way to continue picking up
fixes.

> Your current proposal:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Stability_Proposal
> still fails in that part.

It's a compromise. Under that proposal, we'd push only one KDE upgrade per
release instead of 2, and you'd have to upgrade to the latest released
Fedora to get the latest KDE. (And FWIW, I prefer the current system where
we also upgrade the previous Fedora, for the reasons outlined in that
proposal under "The cons" – and yes, I know the points about KDE 4.4 and Qt
4.6 are outdated.)

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 07:07 AM
drago01
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:11 AM, James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
>>
>> > Extras had significantly fewer packages,
>>
>> Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only 300 less
>> than F11 stable updates.
>>
>> http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/extras/6/x86_64/repoview/index.html
>
> **sigh*, I almost managed to not respond to any of these threads today.
> Anyway (trying to say just the facts):
>
> % yum repolist --releasever=11 updates
> repo id * * * * * * * repo name * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * status
> updates * * * * * * * Fedora 11 - x86_64 - Updates * * * * * * * *9,390
> repolist: 9,390
>
> ...and it's only ~65% done. That also doesn't take into account the fact
> that we've released ~17k F11 updates, which I'm pretty sure didn't
> happen for F6 extras.

I wouldn't count new packages as updates, because that are _added_
packages not _updated_ ones.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org