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, 09:45 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:14 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> >> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
> >> what we see as a better deal for them.
> >
> > I think wanting to decide for your users is a really arrogant attitude.
>
> But that's exactly what you do with rebases during a stable release.

This isn't a productive topic of conversation. Making decisions for
users is intrinsically what package maintainers (and distributions)
*do*. That is their function. If you don't want a maintainer /
distribution making choices for you, you build your own software.

So, no-one's going to win any prizes from this conversation...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 09:48 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 13:49 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:

> Just because KDE 4.2 and Qt 4.5 are "buggy" shouldn't have given 4.4/4.6
> a free ride into stable. Backporting bugs is part of any Fedora package.
> Now that you got your way, this is deteriorating into a shift by you to
> move Fedora to rolling releases so that your personal update model works
> instead of complying to Fedora tradition.
>
> At over 500 emails so far, I think it's proof enough for a need of a
> FESco review of the KDE 4.4/Qt 4.6 update to make sure this crap doesn't
> happen again. Sorry Kevin, but trying to fix Fedora policies so that
> *your* upgrade paths will look correct isn't the right way to go about
> things.

Turning this into an argument about KDE isn't helping anyone. Many
maintainers push new versions of the packages they maintain as updates,
routinely. It's not just KDE by any means. We do not currently have any
'policy' against doing this, so it is not accurate to say that Kevin is
trying to 'fix Fedora policies so that *[his]* upgrade paths will look
correct'. Strictly considering our current policies (or lack of them),
there is nothing wrong with Kevin's upgrade paths.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 10:10 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:

>
> I think it's ultimately a Board decision whether we pick one of the two
> target groups and stick to it, or whether we try to cater to both. That
> decision should basically make it obvious what we should do with our
> update streams.

It's a fesco decision how updates are defined and which ones are
acceptable.

Fesco can make decisions about the distro.

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 08:10 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 20:14:16 Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> >> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
> >> what we see as a better deal for them.
> >
> > I think wanting to decide for your users is a really arrogant attitude.
>
> But that's exactly what you do with rebases during a stable release.

Most users wants it (at least active users - who tell us what they want) and
even most users use Fedora because of it!

Jaroslav
--
Jaroslav Řezn*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 01:04 AM
William Jon McCann
 
Default Worthless updates

Hi Jesse,

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
>> different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
>> here) does exactly that. What's with Debian stable? And i bet even
>> ubuntu is like that.
>
> Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
> run with them into a stable release. *Quite often they pick things
> up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
> the hard problems. *They are also slower to release, and don't provide
> nearly as much opportunity to participate in the development of the
> operating system as Fedora does.

Agree with everything else I've seen you say in this thread and in
person on these issues. But did want to add a note about the above
point...

Actually, I think Ubuntu does a pretty amazing job (all things
considered) with involving their community in the development of their
OS. This is actually sort of strange since they don't really do as
much development in general. Whether they can sustain this as they
move away from upstreams remains to be seen. But, I think one reason
for that success is they seem to support and encourage use of the
development stream (which would be our Rawhide). Whereas, we actively
discourage it - in words and deeds. This kinda sucks because one of
our greatest assets is our relationship to and leadership upstream. I
think, ideally, there should be no better OS for upstream open source
work than Fedora. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. Some
will say that developmental progress is synonymous with brokenness.
On the contrary, progress is only possible when the development
platform is available and ready for work.

Remember that packaging and releasing is not development - it is an
end state of a stream of development. There is a separation in time
between the two. When we talk about Fedora facilitating development
it should be clear that even Rawhide updates must be stable enough to
bootstap up to work on the bits that will become a future Rawhide -
and only after construction, validation, and distribution occur.

I am optimistic that discussions such as this one will lead us in the
right direction. Keep up the good work Jesse (et al).

>> So where is that unique role? Except you mean the exact 6 month
>> release cycle. But who cares about that.
>>
>
> See above.

I think we fill a number of unique roles. Many of them are related to
being trusted to either lead or choose the best available direction
through the nearly infinite possibilities available from the open
source ecosystem. Or in the words of Charles Eames: "It's an ability
to select among the unlimited possibilities and return considerable
richness to the world."

One question is whether we will also be the ones to deliver it. I hope so.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM.

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