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 03-14-2010, 04:50 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/14/2010 11:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>> If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
>> contributors only,
>>
> It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
> *contributors* to be focus is all.
>

How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
what we want to encourage?

You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
inherently self defeating at large. If the only way to use our
contributions in a good form is to use another distribution, then
contributors will go to *that* distribution instead. How it would have
to work instead, is for us to create a system that has a large number of
users, where some of them (admittedly a very small percentage) will take
the next step to become contributors. By losing users, you lose the
opportunity for that to even happen or atleast make it significantly
less likely.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-14-2010, 05:07 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> what we want to encourage?

Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
only benefitting from our (the contributors') work as a side effect.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-14-2010, 05:07 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
>> as it is now!
>
> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
> are not.

Yet they haven't left over it. So why would that suddenly change?

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-14-2010, 06:52 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/15/2010 12:19 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>
>> You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
>> inherently self defeating at large.
>>
> OK, fair enough, you made that case sure. It's just that I don't agree with
> that generalization much (or generalizations in general, heh).
>

Imagine for a moment that you want to encourage a environment that
contributors only care about themselves. What if they maintain a package
where a bug gets reported and they say, "meh, I don't care about that
bug as I don't use that feature. Let me just close it". Would you
agree with that approach? Face it, we will have to strive to be less
selfish than that and care about the end user experience and put that
before our own limited interests. I know you do.

Every contributor is also a user of Fedora. You can take care of KDE
packages but you are user of a entire ecosystem of software around you
(everything from kernel. glibc and upwards) and you would want others to
take care of that well enough for you to be able to develop and build
KDE or simply just use Fedora. Development in Fedora is a means to
enable you and others to do something else and it's not a end onto
itself. We all want to do different things, be it development of
upstream software or reading emails, it is a tool to help us accomplish
all that. If we forget that, we stand the risk of losing perspective
and limit ourselves to a very very small niche.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-14-2010, 10:16 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>> rawhide?
>>
> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
>
I fee that they have been for me. I manage a small shop of some 20 or
so linux users and every KDE update (even minor ones often) brings up
some quirk that I have to track down or change that the user has to get
used to. Rarely disastrous, but annoying and distracting from other
tasks. Is this "disruptive"?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-15-2010, 02:36 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/15/2010 01:40 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
> Kevin Kofler<kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
>
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
>>>> Fedora as it is now!
>>>
>>> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users
>>> clearly are not.
>>
>> Yet they haven't left over it. So why would that suddenly change?
>
> Because the situation worsened dramatically recently.

Did it?

Your observation doesn't match with mine:
* There have always been prematurely shipped, immature and dysfunctional
packages causing user-side malfunctions.
* The kernel has always not worked somewhere.
* KDE and perl packaging policies have not changed.
* There have always been broken package deps in updates.
* Fedora doesn't ship updated DVDs/CDs.
...

What has changed is
* the people in FPB and FESCO
* the number of packages in Fedora.
* the amount of bureaucracy.
* the packages being affected by "instability".
...

Where I have to agree with you
* I am perceiving an increasing unwillingness of maintainers to fix
bugs/defects/malfunctions of released packages.
* I am perceiving an increasingly low quality package submissions and of
low quality package reviews.
...

Ralf


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-15-2010, 03:26 AM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 3/14/2010 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>>>> implement
>>>> the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
>>>> represent a significant user sample?
>>>>
>>> How many users do we need?
>>>
>> sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which user number are you
>> referring to?
>>
> I'd venture he meant in response to your "the poll did not represent a
> significant user sample" comment. So, how many users are needed to make it
> representative?
>

No, I meant how many users does Fedora need to be a viable
distribution? Could we loose 70-80% (seems far fetched) of our user
base and still be viable? If we can, I don't really care how many
users we loose as long as Fedora becomes more useful to me. What
concerns me most is retaining a large percentage of committed
maintainers and community members, and that is a small enough number
that I think we can poll effectively.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:05 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/15/2010 12:54 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
>> Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
>> generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong word!
>
> And yes, these are users who have subscribed to updates-testing. My wife
> bitterly complains about the amount of updates she is getting through
> F12/updates already,
And she doesn't complain about the unfixed bugs she is suffering from?

This is what I am actually complaining about and what hinders me to
switch my wife's personal machine to Fedora.

> so I will have to switch her to something more
> reasonable for normal users

If Fedora KDE updates are a problem to here: Simply don't install it and
these won't be an issue to her.

> (probably CentOS 6, when it will become
> available).

LOL, ... I am expecting Fedora to experience a significant reductions of
contributors, when CentOS6 will become available, because Fedora
contributors will switch away from using Fedora.

Cause: The current buggyness of Fedora.

Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-15-2010, 03:36 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/15/2010 09:43 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
>> what we want to encourage?
>>
> I'm going to hazard a guess and say "all of them". It's basic
> psychology; people don't do things that have no (perceived) benefit to
> them. At most ephemeral, that benefit is "karma".
>
Well, people can serve themselves but they need to care about more than
*only* that.
> So you prefer to throw our current contributors under the bus in the
> *hope* that by increasing users in general you see an increase in
> contributors?
>
Nope. I haven't said anything along those lines.

> Okay. Points for long-term thinking. Not so much for watering down
> Fedora into another Ubuntu.
>

Fedora is inherently different because of several major reasons ( free
software focus, upstream contributions etc) so I don't feel any
insecurity about all this.

> Fedora currently is progressive and aggressive. Maybe moving to
> progressive and conservative will work, but the question I have is how
> effectively can you be progressive without also being aggressive
>

Fedora is currently disjoint and acts differently based on which set of
packages you are talking about ( KDE vs GNOME, Firefox et all).
Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
update streams. With a smaller amount of additional maintenance burden,
we can do this as well.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 AM.

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