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, 03:17 PM
Rajeesh K Nambiar
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> 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
>
>> So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.
>
> That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
> post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.

Uh, oh - it wasn't a *claim*. Its just the popular saying, urban
myth, a general feeling - you name it. It wasn't literal, just
figurative, I hope you understand the essence.

> Rahul's point is that we don't, and the only policy we do have - even
> though, as he specifically notes, it's a weak one (he says 'specifically
> recommends', not 'requires') - is rather the opposite. If you'd left in
> the context from the post Rahul was replying to, this would have been
> clear.
> --
> 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
>



--
Cheers,
Rajeesh
http://rajeeshknambiar.wordpress.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 03:17 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

* Thomas Janssen [05/03/2010 17:03] :
>
> If you ask me, i say, have a face, have a character and offer
> something the others dont. Fedora is exactly that right now.

We're left with the problem that what Fedora is right now isn't
working (massive amounts of updates that our users have to download,
daily composes that take 8 hours, ...).

Emmanuel

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 03:22 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, 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?

(snip)

> 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.

So first you claim there's no regressions, then you acknowledge a
specific one and excuse it by saying 'shit happens'? And 'I saw a lot
more and even terrible stuff happen in Fedora'? The whole point of the
discussion is that not everyone is happy that 'shit happens', and some
wish to reduce the about of 'terrible stuff' that happens in Fedora.
--
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 03-05-2010, 03:23 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:47 +0530, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:

> > That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
> > post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.
>
> Uh, oh - it wasn't a *claim*. Its just the popular saying, urban
> myth, a general feeling - you name it. It wasn't literal, just
> figurative, I hope you understand the essence.

Uh, what? How does what you said relate to what I said in any way?

Rahul wasn't claiming that Fedora has a strict conservative update
policy. He was pointing out that Fedora does *not* have a strict
bleeding-edge policy. Wherein is that 'urban myth', 'popular saying', 'a
general feeling', or 'figurative'?
--
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 03-05-2010, 03:40 PM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, 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?
>
> (snip)
>
>> 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.
>
> So first you claim there's no regressions, then you acknowledge a
> specific one and excuse it by saying 'shit happens'? And 'I saw a lot
> more and even terrible stuff happen in Fedora'? The whole point of the
> discussion is that not everyone is happy that 'shit happens', and some
> wish to reduce the about of 'terrible stuff' that happens in Fedora.

No, i haven't claimed there are no regressions, i just pointed out
that i dont like if a lot of people blow into the same horn, but
haven't seen a regression themselves. That's a difference. And yes, i
excused it with 'sh!t happens'. It is like that in the World, 'stuff
happens'. And if it happens in the SIG we talk about it and try to not
do it again. No, that doesn't mean that we think we're wrong with the
updates of 4.x.x updates. It's already explained over and over again
why we update KDE SC.

There are regressions. But not just in KDE. But interesting that so
much people cry about KDE only.
And Yes, it's always bad if terrible stuff happens. But you cant
reduce *all* the stuff that happens if you constantly pester a single
SIG. It's not like that the KDE SIG is the only one that makes
mistakes or where stuff happens.

*sigh*

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 03:47 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:40 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:

> There are regressions. But not just in KDE. But interesting that so
> much people cry about KDE only.

I agree with that, and I said so earlier in the thread...

> And Yes, it's always bad if terrible stuff happens. But you cant
> reduce *all* the stuff that happens if you constantly pester a single
> SIG. It's not like that the KDE SIG is the only one that makes
> mistakes or where stuff happens.

...however, that's not what's happening. No-one has made any proposal
which would affect only the KDE SIG.
--
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 03-05-2010, 04:10 PM
Andrew Haley
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> 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.....
>>
>> I think you're making a mistake. Surely there's a fundamental
>> distinction between a distro that has the latest packages when
>> released and a distro that has the latest packages all the time via
>> updates. Even if Fedora didn't push new upstream versions via
>> updates, it'd still be a very hot leading edge distro.
>
> Well, no. It wouldn't be a very hot leading distro. It would be
> nothing more than any other distro with the same release-cycle.

Assuming that other distros were packaging all of the exact same
releases on the exact same release cycle, yes, obviously. However, I
don't believe that a distro which always immediately pushed every new
upstream release of everything would be very useful: it'd basically be
like trying to use rawhide all the time.

I suspect that the Fedora policy, as stated, makes the most sense for
most people who use Fedora. There is no rule against pushing new
package releases to updates, but they're not pushed unless there's a
good reason. Fedora is a really good full-featured Linux distro with
an agrressive release cycle, even without a continuous
drinking-from-a-firehose updates policy.

> So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use Fedora
> over one of the other mainstream Distros if Fedora is the same. And
> we will not get users like me if we dont offer that. Sure, there
> might be people who dont give a darn about people like me.

Well, that's a rather specialized taste.

Andrew.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 04:53 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 09:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Uh, what? How does what you said relate to what I said in any way?
>
> Rahul wasn't claiming that Fedora has a strict conservative update
> policy. He was pointing out that Fedora does *not* have a strict
> bleeding-edge policy. Wherein is that 'urban myth', 'popular saying', 'a
> general feeling', or 'figurative'?
>

I believe Rajeesh is saying that his reference to a policy was not
literal but I have seen repeated claims that there is somehow a policy
written or otherwise that Fedora is supposed to be bleeding edge where
base components needs updates immediately and our written policy albeit
a deliberately weak one does not support that assertion

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 04:55 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fedora@gmail.com) said:
> There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing
> KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school
> and at work), I like it. I don't blame people who don't. Here is the
> thing: The bugs need to be reported most of the time to get fixed.
> Fedora has been a pioneer in KDE development in this sense. If we
> don't push 4.x.0 releases to stable, the 4.x.1 will be more buggy,
> since not many distros do kde 4.x.0 updates to their stable releases.
> Someone has to make some sort of sacrifice but I cannot come up with a
> good-for-all resolution for this issue.

If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on
older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's
actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example:

- new version 4.6
-> push it to rawhide, get testing
-> get new Fedora release with that version
--> get *even more testing*, make needed fixes

And only *then* do you push it to the prior releases, once it's actually
proven that it's not going to break things for the widest group of users.
It lets you not only use the rawhide adopters, who expect major change,
but the next-release early adopters, who also expect adjustments on moving
to a next major release.

Bill

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 05:07 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> >
> > Well, no. It wouldn't be a very hot leading distro. It would be
> > nothing more than any other distro with the same release-cycle.
>
> Assuming that other distros were packaging all of the exact same
> releases on the exact same release cycle, yes, obviously. However, I
> don't believe that a distro which always immediately pushed every new
> upstream release of everything would be very useful: it'd basically be
> like trying to use rawhide all the time.
>
Agreed, current rawhide is not consumable or very appealing as a platform to
run.

> I suspect that the Fedora policy, as stated, makes the most sense for
> most people who use Fedora. There is no rule against pushing new
> package releases to updates, but they're not pushed unless there's a
> good reason.
>
Agreed here as well. Proper emphasis on "reason" -- there should be
a reason other than upstream has a new release but there's a lot of leeway
for the maintainer to decide if the reason::risk ratio is okay.

> Fedora is a really good full-featured Linux distro with
> an agrressive release cycle, even without a continuous
> drinking-from-a-firehose updates policy.
>
This is where I'm a bit confused.... AFAICS, no one has pushed for
a drink-from-the-firehose policy. The fact that rawhide is basically
drinking from the firehose is why people care about there being a policy for
F-current that is not overly restrictive... (ie, they want something
between, only security and critical bugfixes, no enhancements and rawhide)

> > So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use Fedora
> > over one of the other mainstream Distros if Fedora is the same. And
>h > we will not get users like me if we dont offer that. Sure, there
> > might be people who dont give a darn about people like me.
>
> Well, that's a rather specialized taste.
>
And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you think
Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's "drink from the
firehose" and that == rawhide, I agree that that's specialized. If it's
semi-rolling updates, then I think that's not so specialized at all.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41 PM.

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