Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 1) Anyone, who wants "adventurous updates" is not representing me.
> I'm willing to fix bugs -- and I want to retain the freedom to publish
> bug-fix updates, which make the software work -- but I don't like to
> jump into cold water after a final release and return it to its
> development period by applying "adventurous updates" on purpose.
> The final release is the wrong place for that.
The word "adventurous" was maybe a bad choice (but still, many people voted
for it anyway in the poll, probably because they realized that it's just a
word and the description clearly explained what it was about anyway). I
wouldn't have used that word myself. What we "adventurous updates" folks
really want is non-disruptive non-conservative updates. No need to be
conservative as long as you don't break anything.
> 2) Fedora doesn't only need more testers of updates to stable releases, it
> also needs more testers during its _entire_ development period. I'm not
> convinced that everyone follows the "release in Rawhide first, test in
> Rawhide first" principle before even considering to upgrade a stable
> release. Let those 70-80% of our users do a great job by helping
> with getting the next Fedora release in shape. It will work better out
> of the box and will need less bug-fix updates. I'm happy about the
> remaining 20-30%, who prefer installations that need not be tinkered
> with daily.
Rawhide is not a solution, as has been explained several times already.
And many feature updates were, in fact, tested in Rawhide first!
> 3) FESCo *and* the FPB ought to discuss their visions and goals
> _privately_ (they still have non-public communication channels for that),
> try to find an agreement with eachother, and when they make their plan
> public, let some sort of spokesman make an announcement on behalf of the
> committee/board. If their proposals _or_ decisions are unpopular and
> result in criticism, I don't want to see the committee/board members fight
> the critics. The members (in particular the elected community
> representatives) are free to ignore critics, or collect feedback and
> possibly revise their proposals or, as a last resort, withdraw unpopular
I couldn't disagree more. I believe strongly in transparency and
accountability. I don't think we should discuss things behind closed doors
and present you with "take it or leave it" or even "take it or leave".
>> When I speak for KDE SIG, I say so!
> What about your FESCo membership? How do you separate between your own
> personal agenda and being an elected community representative?
When I speak for FESCo, I say so! When I don't say otherwise, I only speak
for myself! I'm not a spokesman!
And FYI, I'm the only one who took your defense during and after the FESCo
meeting when those remarks were made about you.
devel mailing list
> What we "adventurous updates" folks
> really want is non-disruptive non-conservative updates. No need to be
> conservative as long as you don't break anything.
It's not that updates "don't break anything". The less conservative, the
higher the risk. The larger and the more numerous the changes in updates,
the more likely they break something.
Unless you have the testing resources to ensure a certain level of quality
for the updates *and* all dependencies, which is doubtful. Or else more
bugs would be found in development *and* in updates-testing than in
stable updates, when *many* more users start using the updated software.
Bugs slip through, even embarrassing ones. And apparently, one of the
reasons for these discussions is not only that there is no policy for
updates yet. But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped
through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take the
risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that part of
Fedora. How exactly remains to be seen.
> Rawhide is not a solution, as has been explained several times already.
> And many feature updates were, in fact, tested in Rawhide first!
And still you can find enough users who blame Fedora because of its
non-working releases -- and because of the many updates, which don't fix
the bugs they consider the worst.
Most of those users have not participated in the development period and
don't enable updates-testing either, because they fear instabilities when
doing so. They expect others to do that and to release a finished product
I dunno whether those 70-80% power-users are, who would stop using Fedora
if stable updates tried to bring stability only. Rather I think we're
missing the 70-80% power-users, who *would* use Fedora if it worked better
out-of-the-box and improved over time with updates adding fixes instead of
*That*'s why I would like to see me and other packagers retain the freedom
to publish updates as needed, but not so they can produce a
rolling-release in disguise that syncs with development too often.
> When I speak for FESCo, I say so! When I don't say otherwise, I only speak
> for myself! I'm not a spokesman!
Right, not a spokesman for FESCo, but still a community representative,
elected by parts of the community. Whether you fight solely for yourself
or whether you believe you act on behalf of the community, isn't obvious.
I think more packagers are more concerned about too high hurdles -- when
releasing a bug-fix update (such as testing feedback becoming mandatory
even for niche packages) -- than about a policy on what sort of updates
(and frequency of updates) would be permitted *without* special intervention.
> And FYI, I'm the only one who took your defense during and after the FESCo
> meeting when those remarks were made about you.
Well, thanks for any defense, but dragging me into the argument in a public
meeting has set off the booby trap.
devel mailing list
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Right, not a spokesman for FESCo, but still a community representative,
> elected by parts of the community. Whether you fight solely for yourself
> or whether you believe you act on behalf of the community, isn't obvious.
Well, it's really both:
* I am personally in favor of non-conservative updates.
* I believe I am also representing a huge portion of the community
(including the actual users), also in the light of the results of Adam
Williamson's poll. That portion of the community also appears to be mostly
ignored by the rest of FESCo and by the Board, which makes me feel all the
more that I need to pick up the fight. If it were just myself, I wouldn't
fight that much for it. (You don't see me fighting for Bluecurve/Quarticurve
by default (as would be my personal preference), for example. ;-) )
> I think more packagers are more concerned about too high hurdles -- when
> releasing a bug-fix update (such as testing feedback becoming mandatory
> even for niche packages) -- than about a policy on what sort of updates
> (and frequency of updates) would be permitted *without* special
I see that as a big problem as well, and I've also been fighting against
that. With little success, as you have seen. :-( While the proposal that's
now being discussed is not as bad as some of the other ones, it's very much
at the border of the tolerable and I fear that any amendments are more
likely to drag it on the side of the intolerable than on the side of the
> Well, thanks for any defense, but dragging me into the argument in a
> public meeting has set off the booby trap.
Well, that's true, and I'm sorry for that. It really wasn't my intention!
devel mailing list