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, 07:27 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Worthless updates

On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>>> here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
>>> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
>>> going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this? Does
>>> anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?

Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.

At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
attention.

Anybody still wonders about Fedora's poor shape and it's reputation?

Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 07:40 AM
Alexander Kurtakov
 
Default Worthless updates

> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> > > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
> > > going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this? Does
> > > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
>

While I can totally understand the desire to stay close to upstream for the
latest release (only), I still think that we should not allow updates other
than bugfix and security to older versions.
I know that this was discussed many times but still such decision will even
benefit whoever wants to have a stable release (i.e. from the time we release
F13 or a month late to sync it with F11 dead, F12 will receive only bugfix and
security updates thus minimizing the chances for possible breaks in it) and
whoever wants latest versions should simply use the latest released version.
Even if someone wants to argue that we will limit the experience of older
versions users let me remind that there are a number or maintainers that do
backport work only to the latest release version and doing only serious bugfix
updates to older versions (e.g I'm in this group) . And there are even more
aggressive maintainers who never put newer versions in older releases.

Is this idea worth discussing at all?

Alexander Kurtakov
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 07:51 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Worthless updates

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
> > going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this? Does
> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> >
>
> the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
>
> 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per
> the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new
> pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
>
> 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix
> updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.

How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 08:00 AM
Rakesh Pandit
 
Default Worthless updates

On 3 March 2010 13:57, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>>>> here is the kicker. *The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. *So these
>>>> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. *So... why is this update
>>>> going out? *What possible benefit does the user get from this? *Does
>>>> anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>>
>> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
>> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
>> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
>> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>

No. Bugfixes (serious ones) and security fixes would not allow it to
happen till the time it is EOL.

--
Rakesh Pandit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh
freedom, friends, features, first
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 08:17 AM
Alexander Kurtakov
 
Default Worthless updates

> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> >>> here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> >>> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
> >>> going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this? Does
> >>> anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> >
> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
>
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.
>
> Anybody still wonders about Fedora's poor shape and it's reputation?

Hmm, I would not say that Fedora is in poor shape . When we speak about
reputation believe me it's way worse if an update breaks smth on my sister's
computer than me having to fix smth during installation and verifying it works
before giving her the computer. And break does not only mean what we accept as
a break, e.g. a simple fonts hinting change will be considered a break if
this causes some of her documents to look in a different way. We are not
speaking for tech savy users only and change for this type of users means you
have to take care of "This update broke my homework formatting" or "Where is
that blue icon for usb devices now?" and etc.

Alexander Kurtakov


>
> Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 08:47 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 09:40:15 Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So
> > > > these functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is
> > > > this update going out? What possible benefit does the user get from
> > > > this? Does anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on
> > > > F11?
> >
> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
>
> While I can totally understand the desire to stay close to upstream for the
> latest release (only), I still think that we should not allow updates other
> than bugfix and security to older versions.
> I know that this was discussed many times but still such decision will even
> benefit whoever wants to have a stable release (i.e. from the time we
> release F13 or a month late to sync it with F11 dead, F12 will receive
> only bugfix and security updates thus minimizing the chances for possible
> breaks in it) and whoever wants latest versions should simply use the
> latest released version.

It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released POV)
F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current version
with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14 (aka
rawhide) to be able to use latest versions with features they want.

If users want really stable (as rock) release - they can use F12 - latest
software is not very old - only half to one year old, it's probably very
stable. Then F13 is in supported state - gets latest but well tested updates
until F14 (probably alpha to let some time for possible regressions to be fixed
until rock time) is released.

This should satisfy most users - both people who wants stable Fedora (F12),
people who wants latest software (doesn't mean unstable) F13 and brave people
- developers/testers with F14 and really raw(hide) Fedora with
untested/unstable software. Then it makes to support more than one released
release ;-)

Jaroslav

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Stability_Proposal

> Even if someone wants to argue that we will limit
> the experience of older versions users let me remind that there are a
> number or maintainers that do backport work only to the latest release
> version and doing only serious bugfix updates to older versions (e.g I'm
> in this group) . And there are even more aggressive maintainers who never
> put newer versions in older releases.
>
> Is this idea worth discussing at all?
>
> Alexander Kurtakov

--
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 03-03-2010, 09:10 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Worthless updates

On 03/03/2010 10:17 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
>> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>>>>> here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
>>>>> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
>>>>> going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this? Does
>>>>> anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>>>
>>> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
>>> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
>>> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
>>> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
>>
>> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>>
>> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>>
>> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
>> attention.
>>
>> Anybody still wonders about Fedora's poor shape and it's reputation?
>
> Hmm, I would not say that Fedora is in poor shape .

Well, I can not avoid to say so. ... this doesn't necessarily mean other
distros are much better.

May-be I am too close to Fedora, may-be I am too heavily using it,
and therefore am aware about issues "occasional users" won't notice ...
I don't know.

Just some issues I have been experiencing with Fedora 12 in recent past:

- Audio stops working twice a day (presumable culprit: Pulseaudio).
- PackageKit's "notification icons" are nonfunctional.
- 2 identical machines are issuing kernel oops seemingly due to a kernel
bug.
- When unplugging the power cord from my netbook, my netbook shuts down
with "battery critically low (96% full) shutting down"
- ABRT ... an master piece of an immature piece of SW which should not
have been added to the distro.
...

> When we speak about
> reputation believe me it's way worse if an update breaks smth on my sister's
> computer than me having to fix smth during installation and verifying it works
> before giving her the computer.
This perl-module update won't affect your sister - She won't even notice
it - But she'll very likely notice the breakage yesterday's KDE update
has caused and she'll likely be confused by this "freaking notification
box in the upper right corner telling her to report something" ...

> And break does not only mean what we accept as
> a break, e.g. a simple fonts hinting change will be considered a break if
> this causes some of her documents to look in a different way. We are not
> speaking for tech savy users only and change for this type of users means you
> have to take care of "This update broke my homework formatting" or "Where is
> that blue icon for usb devices now?" and etc.
Where has that "CD icon" popped up now and on which of the virtual
displays is this "freaking spatical desktop, popup window now" are
questions I am fighting with, daily.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 09:18 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Worthless updates

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:56 -0500, Toshio wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> > > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
> > > going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this? Does
> > > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> > >
> >
> > the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
> >
> > 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per
> > the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new
> > pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
> >
> > 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix
> > updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.

Arbitrary delays? Do you plan to enforce delayed pushing by measuring the
age of an update request? Or would it be that if the next push were to
happen on March 14th, update requests from March 13th would be pushed
already after one day?

Without a good explanation, the plan sounds really bad to me. If I learn
about a crasher bug in a package (perhaps in upstream's message board by a
user who mentions Fedora), I would need to wait two weeks for the bug-fix
updates to be published. And meanwhile I could do nothing to reach all
other users that might be affected by the problem, but who just are not
familiar with how to report it appropriately.

Currently, it isn't pretty already either. Bodhi spams bugzilla about
update requests as soon as they are entered into the system, but prior to
pushing them into a repo. The bug reporters scratch their heads as the
updates are not available anywhere other than in koji. Bodhi spams bz
once more when they get pushed, but it takes additional time (measured
in days) for the updates to be mirrored.

> FWIW, +1 to this general outline.
>
> -Toshio

-1 multiplied with the number of lines I've written above.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 09:53 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan@jonmasters.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>> > here is the kicker. *The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. *So these
>> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. *So... why is this update
>> > going out? *What possible benefit does the user get from this? *Does
>> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.

Rawhide for the masses to stay uptodate? Dont support F-11 well
because it will die "soon"? Same in your opinion for F-12 (leave the
churn in rawhide)?

Why isn't it up to the maintainer to provide latest versions even for
"die soon" versions of Fedora if he want to do it?

If someone think he doesn't need an particular update, dont update it.
I never had a gun pointing to my head telling me i HAVE to update
everything.

BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.

Why kill the advantage of Fedora?

People seem to forget that not everybody can/want run rawhide.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 09:56 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>> > here is the kicker. *The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. *So these
>> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. *So... why is this update
>> > going out? *What possible benefit does the user get from this? *Does
>> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>> >
>>
>> the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
>>
>> 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per
>> the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new
>> pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
>>
>> 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix
>> updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.
>
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.

That sounds good.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24 PM.

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