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 04-12-2010, 04:03 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 16:40 +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
> I feel that the current re-written version of kaddressbook is
> completely useless for daily work and it was a serious mistake
> to push it into stable release.
>
> 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?
>
> This current one has so many regressions that I'm not even going to
> bother myself by starting to make a list, everyone using that
> application knows what I'm talking about.

It would be best to ask on the KDE list or in #fedora-kde, I think.
--
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 04-13-2010, 12:33 AM
Ryan Rix
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

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`.

--
Ryan Rix
== http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ ==
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-13-2010, 08:46 AM
Juha Tuomala
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

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?


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 04-14-2010, 01:53 PM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

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. If you have a problem with it, ask for help and you
get help.
You got the right answer for what you asked. *You* want the older
version. Good luck downgrading and have fun with it.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 05:25 PM
Ryan Rix
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

On Wed 14 April 2010 6:53:24 am 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. If you have a problem with it, ask for help and you
> get help.
> You got the right answer for what you asked. *You* want the older
> version. Good luck downgrading and have fun with it.

I suggested that Juha fix his issue by downgrading simply because of this.
He was the same person who has been complaining about KAddressbook in 4.4
since its initial release, two months ago.

Ryan

--
Ryan Rix
== http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ ==
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 08:32 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

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.

I have no experience with kaddressbook, but I had a similar experience
in October 2008 with Evolution 2.24. There, the merging of the disk
summary code before it was anything near release quality caused many
regressions, including breaking threaded search folders, which I rely on
heavily. Unfortunately, Evolution 2.22 had many equally severe bugs
(notably a crash when editing a sorted task list), so by pursuing
disk-summary in 2.24 rather than just fixing bugs, upstream left Fedora
between a rock and a hard place. I filed a bug requesting a reversion
to 2.22, which may have been a bad idea on the whole but IMO deserved
more consideration than the knee-jerk WONTFIX it got:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468950

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 08:51 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

Matt McCutchen wrote:

> 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.

I appreciate the comment, but that oversimplifies things quite a bit. there
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 fix the primary bug/app at issue here.

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.

-- Rex

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 09:03 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:51 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I appreciate the comment, but that oversimplifies things quite a bit. there
> 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 fix the primary bug/app at issue here.
>
> 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.

I'm not oversimplifying: by "most users would be better with the older
version", I meant to include such integration consequences.

I'll believe you that the answer is no. You should have given this
answer to Tuju's original question rather than snippily dismissing it.

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 09:11 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 10:25 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
> I suggested that Juha fix his issue by downgrading simply because of this.
> He was the same person who has been complaining about KAddressbook in 4.4
> since its initial release, two months ago.

I find that communities run better if every question is answered in good
faith based on facts, even if it appears to have been asked in bad
faith.

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 09:12 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

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.

--
Matt

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:03 PM.

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