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 04-14-2010, 11:10 PM
Ryan Rix
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

On Wed 14 April 2010 2:12:36 pm Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 17:03 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > You should have given this
> > answer to Tuju's original question rather than snippily dismissing it.
>
> Whoops, sorry, I confused Rex Dieter with Ryan Rix. That remark was
> meant for Ryan, not Rex.

The problem I had with the thread, and the reason I originally was so snippy
was because Juha is complaining about the same update that, for better or
worse, the KDE SIG to stable.[1] My apologies if I've offended anyone, but
if the same user posts the same complaint two months later without any
effort to solve it for themselves (pulling kdepim 4.3 from koji? yum
history? yum downgrade?) just sounds like trollbait to me.

Ryan

[1]: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-March/132221.html

--
Ryan Rix
== http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ ==
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-15-2010, 06:18 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:53 +0200, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Juha Tuomala <Juha.Tuomala@iki.fi> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Ryan Rix wrote:
>> >> On Mon 12 April 2010 6:40:59 am Juha Tuomala wrote:
>> >>> I recall, that the earlier version had some level of Akonadi support
>> >>> as well, so in theory, would it be possible to revert the codebase
>> >>> back to the one that can actually be used?
>> >>
>> >> Sure, try `man yum`.
>> >
>> > You mean that we're here to solve our own problems, not to make a
>> > good distribution for great public?
>>
>> We *have* a good distribution for great public. Kaddressbook works as
>> expected for me.
>
> Please take the request seriously. *If Tuju is right that most users
> would be better off with the older version, then that's what Fedora
> should ship. *Tuju, if you can possibly be bothered to list some of the
> regressions you consider most severe, that might help the discussion.

A general complain, about a software being completely unusable,
without pointing out a single problem (not to speak of the masses of
problems he sees), recommending to downgrade a single app out of a
software bundle, because it would be better for *most* users, can't be
taken seriously. Sorry.

We also have a fedora-kde ML for KDE related discussions. That's as
well the place where fedora contributors read and help with problems.
So if you want to help tuju further, please do it at the appropriate
mailinglist. Thank you.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-15-2010, 09:09 AM
Juha Tuomala
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> are a lot of other packages and issues and bugs involved here. Reverting
> even part or all as you suggest would have far bigger bad consequences than
> helping


That's what I thought, it's not just a matter of yumming older
stuff back. Secondly, majority of endusers just update their
systems, they have no glue how to revert some packages back.

> fix the primary bug/app at issue here.

yes, the question is exactly fixing the application or developing
it further rather than fixing some crash.

The whole application has been rewritten, with new user interface,
dialogs and features. For example, entry name handling has changed
completely. Now you can't sort names based on lastname in listing,
nor edit them separately in edit dialog. There are tens of this
kind of changes that behave differently, but also changes in feature
set.

Now, as storage has been separated, perhaps it could have been
possible to provide this new rewritten version as pre-view package
aside the old one. Or later on, have the old one as fallback to
access that same functionality and provide feedback for the new one.

> Fact is... qa'ing this, in updates-testing or kde-testing or whatever, and
> finding the root cause(s), in part failed to catch this in time (prior to
> push to stable updates). The best (and honestly only) way forward is to
> better document things (userbase.kde.org ftw!) and to continue working
> toward the goal noble of making everything just work.

Based on previous one (to which i gave tens of feedback
suggestions) it will take years, my guess is 4-6 years to
get this current one back to stage where the old one was.
I've a feeling that nobody is continously developing it
in upstream. Changes come in this kind of rewrites and fall
back to very slow period again.


Tuju

--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-20-2010, 09:49 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

Juha Tuomala wrote:
> I recall, that the earlier version had some level of Akonadi support
> as well, so in theory, would it be possible to revert the codebase
> back to the one that can actually be used?

And what to do with the already migrated data? And the data users added
after migration? I don't think reverting is feasible at this point (and I
agree our kde ML would be a better place to discuss this).

Kevin Kofler

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49 PM.

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