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 03-05-2010, 07:36 AM
Sven Lankes
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:15:50PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.

> If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy then I could
> agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
> latest always you could use kde-redhat repo

Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends
frozen frustration" in the future ...

When I 'sell' Fedora at FLOSS events my main two arguments are:

1) Fedora gets you current software - not only is it often first in
shipping new stuff (among other projects, I use xorg as an example)
in new releases it is also the only major distribution that ships
updated versions for a release.

2) It's easy to start contributing. Becoming a package maintainer takes
a lot less time than for Debian / Ubuntu and rpm packaging is easier
to grasp than building debs.

If we continue stacking additional constraints on the packager / update
process and switch to a 'security and data-loss bugfixes only' policy
for releases then I would loose both arguments and fedora would just be
chasing ubuntu. I'd hate to see that happen as I'm pretty sure that
the answer to who is the better ubuntu will always be ubuntu.

That said I'm pretty excited about the prospect of having AutoQA
automatically test and reject updates and making the karma process
easier for the user so that it can be promoted and relied upon in the
future.

--
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven@lankes.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 07:57 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
> of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends
> frozen frustration" in the future ...
>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations

The four foundations have really nothing to do with a claim that we
need to push new upstream versions as updates and yes while we are the
first to ship a lot of new features that should be primarily limited to
the time of the release and other distributions have given the choice by
providing a backports repository to satisfy the people who want the
bleeding edge stuff as updates

We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
every upstream release into the updates repository

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines

It might be different for leaf or niche packages but kde is a very big
update and the risk of regressions has always been high

Rahul


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:15 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
> maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
> every upstream release into the updates repository
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines

1. That policy is not mandatory, just indicative:
"These are not intended to be prescriptive rules. Package maintainers are
expected to to exercise their own common sense and good judgement."
2. That policy doesn't say that no new versions or even no feature upates
should be pushed. Quite the opposite, it says "A simple rule of thumb might
be to not push the new release unless it fixes a problem that a user has
reported or introduces a new feature that Fedora users have previously
requested." The KDE feature updates were definitely requested by our users
and they also fixed some bugs (actual BUGS, not RFEs) reported in Fedora,
e.g.:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539395
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557530
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565415
(not to mention the many upstream bugs, some of which actually happen to
have been filed by Fedora users, also fixed).
3. Yes, regressions should be considered, but that's what updates-testing is
for, as is also spelled out in that policy.

So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:25 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
>> of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends
>> frozen frustration" in the future ...
>>
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations
>
> The four foundations have really nothing to do with a claim *that we
> need to push new upstream versions as updates and yes while we are the
> first to ship a lot of new features that should be primarily limited to
> the time of the release and other distributions have given the choice by
> providing a backports repository to satisfy the people who want the
> bleeding edge stuff as updates
>
> We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
> maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
> every upstream release into the updates repository
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
>
> It might be different for leaf or niche packages but kde is a very big
> update and the risk of regressions has always been high

I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
BZ as well?

I read about regressions as it would have been thousands every release
(yes, that's exactly as it sonds). We DO test our stuff as mentioned
as well over and over again. AND we grow slowly under the roof of
Fedora. Part of that growing IS that we give our users what they want.
I myself have/had only ONE single regression with the update to 4.4.0.
And that's even a regression only a handful of users face, cross
distro.

The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn,
that shouldn't happen, but sh!t happens. I saw a lot more and even
terrible stuff happen in Fedora.

I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
"stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands
for out there in the wild. To be a leading edge distribution. And dont
come up again with rawhide. That's just ridiculous, because then i can
run EVERY distro out there and use their rawhide/factory/cooker or
whatever name they have. Leading edge doesn't stand only for "new
technics adopted first".

Another thing, since you throw that links about
package_update_guidelines around, some maintainers should also check
what software is my software built against and dont push broken
software without testing to stable because of that "mistake"

Just to remind anyone, if you forgot, or dont know what Fedora stands
for IN REAL LIFE, you might go out and check it. It stands exactly for
what you terribly fight against. And people love it exactly for that.
But sure, there's always the possibility to bend over and try as hard
as you can to make something without an own identity.....

And no, not a single sentence is written aggressively. More with a big *sigh*

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:29 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.
>

Of course you don't which is part of the problem since you continue to
not treat the risk of regressions as seriously as you should even though
the latest push did cause problems despite careful planning and testing
and since the current guidelines do not attempt to cover every possible
scenario there is enough room for you to overlook the most important
part of the policy which is "maintain stability" and if we break the
desktop environment in an update we have clearly failed to do so

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:41 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
> BZ as well?
>
A while back a kde update caused kmail to stop working on imap accounts
and I dont use the DE in Fedora anymore because I wanted to avoid such
problems with big updates and while I don't have the bz number for that
problem handy it would easy enough to find if you are interested and
every big push has repeatedly brought out similar problems

> Another thing, since you throw that links about
> package_update_guidelines around, some maintainers should also check
> what software is my software built against and dont push broken
> software without testing to stable because of that "mistake"
>
This is seriously petty and I would point out that messing around with
the buildroot as part of the big kde update is what caused the problem
in the first place and yes I was told that future announcement would add
more clarity and the sig would avoid buildroot overrides for future updates

> Just to remind anyone, if you forgot, or dont know what Fedora stands
> for IN REAL LIFE, you might go out and check it. It stands exactly for
> what you terribly fight against.
>

You seem to assume that other people dont talk to Fedora users and that
is wrong and I still differ from your position

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:03 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
>> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
>> BZ as well?
>>
> A while back a kde update caused kmail to stop working on imap accounts
> and I dont use the DE in Fedora anymore because I wanted to avoid such
> problems with big updates and while I don't have the bz number for that
> problem handy it would easy enough to find if you are interested and
> every big push has repeatedly brought out similar problems

So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
that you blow into the same horn as others do? If so, i would have
expected more from you.

>> Another thing, since you throw that links about
>> package_update_guidelines around, some maintainers should also check
>> what software is my software built against and dont push broken
>> software without testing to stable because of that "mistake"
>>
> This is seriously petty and I would point out that messing around with
> the buildroot as part of the big kde update is what caused the problem
> in the first place and yes I was told that future announcement would add
> more clarity and the sig would avoid buildroot overrides for future updates

Indeed better announcements will save (almost) that problems. And a
better system than buildroot overrides we're asking/asked for will
help there as well. Though there's that link YOU provided and pointed
fingers at US.

>> Just to remind anyone, if you forgot, or dont know what Fedora stands
>> for IN REAL LIFE, you might go out and check it. It stands exactly for
>> what you terribly fight against.
>>
>
> You seem to assume that other people dont talk to Fedora users and that
> is wrong and I still differ from your position

No, i just tell you (not only you, but all people) that they shouldn't
forget about what Fedora stands for and the things we earn our love
for. So the one who assumes something seems to be you. I don't want to
convert you, so please keep your different position. But stay with
what YOU know from experience and provide BZs for that mass of
regressions/problems you faced. That's something YOU want from users
as well who have a different position than you.

Thank you.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:12 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
> you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
> that you blow into the same horn as others do? If so, i would have
> expected more from you
>

I faced more problems in other places besides kde obviously and if you
want another example there was a thunderbird update sometime before that
caused issues with the indexing being turned in an update and setting
aside personal experiences there has been ample proof of regressions in
Fedora updates

> better system than buildroot overrides we're asking/asked for will
> help there as well. Though there's that link YOU provided and pointed
> fingers at US.
>

I would ask you to drop this "you vs us" mentality and work on solving
the issues that updates cause and consider how can we solve them

> No, i just tell you (not only you, but all people) that they shouldn't
> forget about what Fedora stands for
>

The whole point is that Fedora stands for different things to different
people and we need to find a good balance

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:29 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
>> you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
>> that you blow into the same horn as others do? If so, i would have
>> expected more from you
>>
>
> I faced more problems in other places besides kde obviously and if you
> want another example there was a thunderbird update sometime before that
> caused issues with the indexing being turned in an update and setting
> aside personal experiences there has been ample proof of regressions in
> Fedora updates

Indeed. And i saw even worse regressions.

>> better system than buildroot overrides we're asking/asked for will
>> help there as well. Though there's that link YOU provided and pointed
>> fingers at US.
>>
>
> I would ask you to drop this "you vs us" mentality and work on solving
> the issues that updates cause and consider how can we solve them

Thank you, now we're speaking the same language. Yes, the KDE SIG
wants the problems solved as well. It's just that repeated we are the
bad guys that makes me sick slowly. I think we found (in that BIG
threads) a handful very good options to fit everyones needs. Now it's
time to wait for the Board to give FESCo their vision and see what
FESCo wants to do with it. IMO.

Meanwhile we could stop to attack eatch other and try to relax a bit
I hope FESCo will do the right thing to find a way that fits all of
our users. The possibilitys are there.

>> No, i just tell you (not only you, but all people) that they shouldn't
>> forget about what Fedora stands for
>>
>
> The whole point is that Fedora stands for different things to different
> people and we need to find a good balance

Right. A good balance would be great. Even i thought we already have
one. Well, *i* thought

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:56 AM
Rajeesh K Nambiar
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>>
>
> If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy then I could
> agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
> latest always you could use kde-redhat repo

I have been looking at the kde-redhat repo and I couldn't find any KDE
SC 4.3+ updates. Am I missing something?

>
> Rahul
>



--
Cheers,
Rajeesh
http://rajeeshknambiar.wordpress.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37 PM.

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