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, 05:59 PM
Andy Green
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/10 18:06, Somebody in the thread at some point said:

>>> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a
>>> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence obviously does not
>>> apply. Instead, my original point does (you'll be compiling your
>>> own software very often anyway).
>>
>> It's a bit of a false dichotomy because I may be developing my stuff
>> and using someone else's, but I take your point.
>
> You can call it a straw man, no problem calling things as they are.
>
> I love people quoting other people slightly out of context and putting
> their spin on it to make a point ...

My dear Simo your IFF is malfunctioning. "I take your point" is me
agreeing that I took his words out of context when I went back and read
what he clearly quoted. Having understood his larger point, I don't
think splitting people into "developers" and "users" is a worthwhile
distinction because all developers are users of something else.

At the company I am working for this whole subject has been a matter of
great debate these last days about the best way to update our own stable
packages for our own repo on top of a Fedora basis, by focus on backport
or elevating our equivalent of rawhide into stable after thorough testing.

AFAICS the best way through it is a mixture depending on the exact
situation of each package and the divergence in the sources and libs.
If a fix we would like to have in stable is dependent on new APIs in
uplevelled libs, backporting becomes Hell given the need to retain the
old APIs for packages that don't get updated while integrating new ones
for the fix.

It pushes me towards thinking a solution by bringing in the new libs and
accepting the damage in terms of uplevelling and retesting the users of
the library can often be the right way. And that seems to be Kevin's
POV which is why I was surprised to misread what I misread.

-Andy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 07:21 PM
Peter Jones
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/2010 03:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>> So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwilling or
>> unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
>
> KDE upstream fixes hundreds of bugs each month. It is just plain impossible
> to backport all their bugfixes with the manpower we, or any other existing
> distro, have (and no, our GNOME maintainers don't have that kind of manpower
> either, so please don't bring up that argument)

And yet gnome package maintainers do manage to fix bugs without backporting
all of gnome.

> , and even if we miraculously managed to do it anyway, it would lead
> to us shipping something completely untested outside of Fedora, so
> it'd potentially be much more broken than the newer stable release
> series.

And they don't seem to have severe breakage because of it.

--
Peter

THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 09:14 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Peter Jones wrote:
> And yet gnome package maintainers do manage to fix bugs without
> backporting all of gnome.

They don't fix all the bugs the new GNOME release series fixes. Most of
those bugs, if they don't happen to be fixed by one of the bugfix releases,
just stay unfixed until the next Fedora release (or longer).

Another important point is that we align to the GNOME schedule, whereas the
KDE schedule is cross-aligned. So you can often just upgrade to the new
Fedora to get the new GNOME, whereas for KDE you'd have to wait months. It
is impossible to align our schedule to all upstream projects simultaneously.
(And no, upstream projects won't all align to the same schedule, no matter
how much Mark Shuttleworth pushes for that.)

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 10:49 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/2010 11:25 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 07:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Once 4.n+1.0 is out, 4.n.x is no longer updated, there are no further bugfix
>> releases, any bugs in it will stay unfixed. And there are also nice new
>> features in the new version.
>
> So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwilling or
> unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
>

Umm, is this really the standard we expect to hold package maintainers
to? I expect them to be able to communicate the bug to upstream and if
upstream fixes it provide that fix if it is not too disruptive. Now I
have fixed bugs in my packages, and that is a nice thing for a
maintainer to be able to do, but I'm not sure we are ready to make that
a requirement.

At least, that is how I interpret the phrase "actually fix bugs".

--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 05:05 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/13/2010 12:22 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed, unless there
>> is a good reason NOT to push a particular new version (feature regressions,
>> known unfixed new bugs as found during testing, requires manual
>> intervention, breaks compatibility with existing user data etc.). (And of
>> course, if there are such reasons, the update MUST NOT be pushed. That's
>> what distinguishes the updates from Rawhide, and it's an important
>> distinction, because it defines stability from the user's point of view.)
>
> Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
> push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
> to.
>
> Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
> good enough reason /to/.

Nicely put - There are two radical positions, which both lack "common
sense" and both are impracticable.

As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.





--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-13-2010, 09:00 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/13/2010 09:54 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
>
> This is the fallacy of the middle way. it's simply not always true.
I disagree: fanatical radicalism is naive and will always will always
lead to failure.

> Just a random example; point is, a compromise is never
> automatically the right solution;
Right, a compromise is a compromise ... it will not taste everybody and
will always be somewhat suboptimal wrt. some aspects ... such is life.

With regard to packaging:
* Backporting might be simple in some cases, but it might not be
possible or uneffective in others.
* For some cases, "preventive pushing packages" is a suitable strategy
to prevent security risks and bugs, in others this is not applicable.
* In some cases deliberately breaking SONAMEs is a tolerable policy, in
others it is not.
* Some distributions are suitable for some use-cases, but are not in others.
...

The key is to balance the trade-offs in individual cases.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-15-2010, 04:07 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> 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.
Your claim is self-contradictory: Additional repos mean additional
maintenance burden and additional complexity.

Or did I read your request incorrectly and you are proposing to
reintroduce a Core+Extra's split?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50 PM.

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