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 03-12-2010, 10:20 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 13:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:31 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > >> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> > >> similar distro isn't for them.
> > >
> > > I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> > > working out a method that satisfies more users.
> >
> > Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
> > People¹ use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
> > identity, then people¹ won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.
>
> Even if we were to institute a more conservative update policy, we
> wouldn't necessarily actually sacrifice Fedora's leading-edge nature.
>
> Point The First: Ubuntu's update policy is really extremely
> conservative. To a rough approximation they update almost nothing. They
> do security fixes. You have to argue really, really hard to get any kind
> of bug fixed, though. None of the proposals made so far is anywhere near
> as tight as Ubuntu's policy.
>
> Point The Second: post-release updates are not the be-all and end-all.
> At release time, Fedora is generally more cutting-edge in at least core
> components than the time-equivalent Ubuntu release (and Mandriva, and
> SUSE, and yadda yadda). Case in point - F12 and Ubuntu 9.10 are more or
> less contemporaneous, yet F12 shipped with newer versions of many
> components, notably X server. (We're the _only_ major late-2009 cycle
> distro to have shipped X server 1.7, everyone else shipped 1.6). So even
> if both followed exactly identical update policies, Fedora would still
> be the more 'cutting-edge' release.

Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that stability
once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
Fedora to fill.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 12:07 AM
Peter Boy
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> > argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
>
> +10 to that!

Indeed!!



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 03:43 AM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Matthew Woehlke
<mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>>>> to those users, can go start their own project.
>>>
>>> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Prove that it *isn't* true.

Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
and not easily proven that it wasn't. Relying on the forum for data is
bad science and makes this whole argument more and more farcical. I am
saying this as a mostly neutral body.. I really don't care one way or
another beyond my google account is running out of diskspace because
of it.


> First off: I'm not asking for unbaked stuff. Second, "unbaked stuff" Is
> exactly why I have no intention of using rawhide. As for proving my
> point, well I've been trying to get through to you people² for the last

Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
(a couple of days if its a small one). To you its something else. To
Jon it is probably something else. Without defining what you mean and
findout what they mean.. there is no conversation.

Most of these threads are hogwash. People are spending more time
reading into each others motives without asking for clarification than
actually doing the hard work of saying "I don't know what you mean."
All this fucking flag waving and "This is my distribution and you are
killing it." from BOTH sides is below childish.

I have better behaved cub-scouts after feeding them with sugar cookies
and giving them woopie cushions. [And I don't want to hear about who
started it.. it does not matter at this point.]



--
Stephen J Smoogen.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 07:45 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
> contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
> users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
> and not easily proven that it wasn't. Relying on the forum for data is
> bad science and makes this whole argument more and more farcical. I am

Again, when I'm trying to be a scientist, I'll be sure and let you know.
=) The poll wasn't intended to be a statistically valid indication of
the entire Fedora user base. For the record, I don't think it's
sufficiently strong to support the claims Kevin is trying to make it
support.

I don't think it was stuffed, though, for a couple of reasons. One, it
wasn't discussed anywhere outside the forums until over 100 votes were
in (and the percentages then were about the same as they are now). Two,
when a poll's being stuffed, you usually see a large amount of votes
arrive in a lump; I've been watching the vote counts for the poll, and
that hasn't happened, they've mostly dribbled in a few at a time.

BTW, it would be very difficult to take up your suggestion, as we don't
*have* a big list of All Fedora Users for the external polling agency to
generate a random list from. All the usable lists of Fedora-related
people we have probably suffer from some kind of selection bias. The
best would be the Smolt data, but of course that's not identifiable in
any way you could use to contact people.
--
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 03-13-2010, 09:11 AM
Mary Ellen Foster
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 13 March 2010 01:46, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> Kevin, you are continually talking as if you represent a vast majority
> of all Fedora users and the Fedora project itself. *You say "we" do
> something, when you really mean "the KDE SIG". *Please stop trying to
> speak for everybody else.

FWIW, not even necessarily all of the KDE SIG either ...

MEF

--
Mary Ellen Foster -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/
Interaction Lab -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/InteractionLab
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University

Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity
number SC000278
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 09:52 AM
Ville-Pekka Vainio
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
> Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that stability
> once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
> Fedora to fill.

I've avoided participating in these threads, since I don't really want
to feed a flame war, but now I'll mention that this is something I'd
like Fedora to be.

I mostly use and contribute to Fedora because it's an RPM/Red Hat style
distribution with a strong emphasis on community contributors, free
software and upstream.

As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
considering switching those to Ubuntu once the new LTS release comes
out. I've taught these people how to update their systems, but I'm
always a bit worried that the adventurous updates are going to break
something they need to do their daily computing.

I have no problem with the new releases being leading edge, I actually
quite like that. I can always put the new release onto a USB stick and
test that the important stuff is working on a particular system before
upgrading, especially since I upgrade other people's systems about once
a year, when the old release becomes EOL. But I can't do this sort of
testing for the updates being pushed to the stable releases, so I'd like
to be able to trust those not to break things, at least to some extent.

--
Ville-Pekka Vainio

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 10:46 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
> pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:

> As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
> installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
> considering switching those to Ubuntu once the new LTS release comes
> out.
You actually want a different distribution, likely a Fedora LTS, not
current Fedora.

Unfortunately, Fedora's leadership repeatedly had brushed off a Fedora
LTS as "unmaintainable" and redirected people to CentOS.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:42 AM
Andy Green
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/13/10 11:46, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
>> pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
>
>> As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
>> installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
>> considering switching those to Ubuntu once the new LTS release comes
>> out.
> You actually want a different distribution, likely a Fedora LTS, not
> current Fedora.
>
> Unfortunately, Fedora's leadership repeatedly had brushed off a Fedora
> LTS as "unmaintainable" and redirected people to CentOS.

But they're right to say it's unmaintainable in the long term aren't
they? You said yourself in your impressive summary I agree with:

>> * Backporting might be simple in some cases, but it might not be
>> possible or uneffective in others.

What are people meant to do when they commit to stability in the sense
of not uplevelling things and introducing new code, and then find that
backporting is "not possible or uneffective"? It's fair to imagine that
the upstream and its lib dependencies' HEADs won't stay similar to
whatever it is that was released in most cases just to make life easy.
Then the workload is increasingly "nontrivial" or impossible as the
codebases diverge.

Is the effort and personpower poured into trying to hold the line at
some arbitrary release not in the end better poured into moving things
forward and improving them?

I don't ask it idly or without understanding the value of stability at
the end user, we will be shipping very large numbers of embedded devices
where updates must not trash or damage the user experience. I am just
wondering if the focus on backport-based stability is in the end
illusory and doomed.

-Andy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 02:50 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
>> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
>> (a couple of days if its a small one).
>
> If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0 actually had
> much MORE than a month of testing before being pushed. Even if you count
> only the stable release, it got more than 2 weeks of total testing before
> the stable push. But the changes between the RCs and the final were fairly
> small.
>
> So please don't overgeneralize claiming all the feature updates which are
> getting pushed are "unbaked".

Kevin, I am only going to respond once because it is clear you don't
really read, you just shoot from your hip and you have not a single
iota of compromise.

You just inferred a whole lot into my post. I never said anything
about KDE in this post. I don't use it enough to be able to talk about
it. I gave a definition of what I thought unbaked was... nothing more,
nothing less.

I am done trying to have a conversation here... *plunk*


--
Stephen J Smoogen.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 03:16 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
>> contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
>> users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
>> and not easily proven that it wasn't. Relying on the forum for data is
>> bad science and makes this whole argument more and more farcical. I am
>
> Again, when I'm trying to be a scientist, I'll be sure and let you know.
> =) The poll wasn't intended to be a statistically valid indication of
> the entire Fedora user base. For the record, I don't think it's
> sufficiently strong to support the claims Kevin is trying to make it
> support.

My sincere apologies Adam, I was not trying to make you into the
villian of this, and probably should have worded things differently.

The poll was done in a sincere effort to get information. And some
sort of poll is needed to start seeing what questions need to be
asked. However an initial poll like this only has a confidence level
of around 50% and no ability to do confidence levels (+/-X amount you
see on various polls in the news)

The results from it have been parlayed as facts; when in the end, they
are just a viewpoint of a select view of people (those who register on
the forum, use the forum regularly,etc ), and because of the nature of
the forum it is hard to determine how much validity there is in the
testing. Even if it was not stuffed, the uncertainty of the tool makes
it so that if say the slower updates had been 70% of the population,
the other side would claim it wasn't a valid test (and vice versa).

> I don't think it was stuffed, though, for a couple of reasons. One, it
> wasn't discussed anywhere outside the forums until over 100 votes were
> in (and the percentages then were about the same as they are now). Two,
> when a poll's being stuffed, you usually see a large amount of votes
> arrive in a lump; I've been watching the vote counts for the poll, and
> that hasn't happened, they've mostly dribbled in a few at a time.
>
> BTW, it would be very difficult to take up your suggestion, as we don't
> *have* a big list of All Fedora Users for the external polling agency to

No we would have to determine it from FAS... probably using the group
CLA and been a member for over X time. You would then poll through
them sending a directed email to a random set and point them to a
closed poll. After the poll had been validated you would then announce
the results (or announce that it had failed validty tests).

While the FAS+CLA is a self selected group, it is representative of
the developers of the group which would fit into the population that
both groups seem to be thinking they talk for .

> generate a random list from. All the usable lists of Fedora-related
> people we have probably suffer from some kind of selection bias. The
> best would be the Smolt data, but of course that's not identifiable in
> any way you could use to contact people.
> --
> 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
>



--
Stephen J Smoogen.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 AM.

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