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 Marketing

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:30 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

Hey everyone, just a quick heads-up. Some of you may have read about a
memory leak that cropped up very late in Ubuntu 10.04 development
process. They kindly put this phrase in their explanation of the bug:

"One possible solution is to roll back the GLX 1.4 enablement patches,
and the patch which caused the memory leak to appear. These GLX patches
were produced by RedHat and incorporated into Debian, they were not
brought in due to Ubuntu-specific requirements"

which can obviously create the impression that the patches in question
actually come from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or from Fedora.

Short story for the impatient: the problematic patch is not in any
version of Fedora and never has been, Fedora is not subject to this
memory leak and never has been.

So if you see any stories drawing the implication that Fedora is also
subject to this leak, please feel free to correct them - it isn't.

Longer version for the curious: I'm not sure about the claim that the
'GLX 1.4 enablement patches' come from Red Hat, they may be in RHEL for
some reason, but they're not in Fedora; we wouldn't need to backport GLX
1.4 from X server 1.8 to 1.7 as we're just shipping X server 1.8 in
Fedora 13 anyway.

Regardless, the actual patch that caused the problem in Ubuntu was not
part of the GLX 1.4 backport, but was an attempt to fix this bug:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26394

Sometimes X would crash when Clutter-based apps closed. Fedora did
actually suffer from this bug too:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579756

However, Ubuntu and Fedora took different approaches to fixing it.
Ubuntu seems to have jumped on one of Jesse Barnes' early attempts to
fix the problem (Jesse works for RH, hence the Red Hat link). In the
end, though, if you read the upstream bug, Jesse ceded to Kristian
Høgsberg (who, for the record, works for Intel), who provided a better
fix which was committed to upstream. For Fedora 13, we took Kristian's
fix, not any of Jesse's attempts. This was included in
xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-7.fc13 . That seems to have caused a couple of
problems with compositing managers:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584832
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577142

-7 was sent as a candidate update for F13, got bad Bodhi feedback (as
you'd expect) and was withdrawn; it never went into the 'stable' F13
repo (the one from which the final F13 will actually be built). The bugs
were fixed by adding one more upstream patch, from Michel Dänzer:

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/xorg-x11-server/F-13/xserver-1.8.0-dri2-fix-handling-of-redirected-pixmaps.patch?view=markup

to xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-8.fc13 . That build has good feedback:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-8.fc13

and was pushed to F13 updates two days ago. So in summary our processes
worked very well, we didn't jump on an incomplete fix, we didn't push
the initial upstream fix to the 'stable' F13 because our feedback system
made us aware of the problems it caused, we did push the fully-working
fixed package when it was confirmed ready, and we were never at any
point subject to the memory leak issue. This is actually quite a nice
story of our QA processes working effectively, if someone's looking for
such a thing. =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:38 PM
Nelson Marques
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

Press Release? 8)


On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:30 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey everyone, just a quick heads-up. Some of you may have read about a
> memory leak that cropped up very late in Ubuntu 10.04 development
> process. They kindly put this phrase in their explanation of the bug:
>
> "One possible solution is to roll back the GLX 1.4 enablement patches,
> and the patch which caused the memory leak to appear. These GLX patches
> were produced by RedHat and incorporated into Debian, they were not
> brought in due to Ubuntu-specific requirements"
>
> which can obviously create the impression that the patches in question
> actually come from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or from Fedora.
>
> Short story for the impatient: the problematic patch is not in any
> version of Fedora and never has been, Fedora is not subject to this
> memory leak and never has been.
>
> So if you see any stories drawing the implication that Fedora is also
> subject to this leak, please feel free to correct them - it isn't.
>
> Longer version for the curious: I'm not sure about the claim that the
> 'GLX 1.4 enablement patches' come from Red Hat, they may be in RHEL for
> some reason, but they're not in Fedora; we wouldn't need to backport GLX
> 1.4 from X server 1.8 to 1.7 as we're just shipping X server 1.8 in
> Fedora 13 anyway.
>
> Regardless, the actual patch that caused the problem in Ubuntu was not
> part of the GLX 1.4 backport, but was an attempt to fix this bug:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26394
>
> Sometimes X would crash when Clutter-based apps closed. Fedora did
> actually suffer from this bug too:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579756
>
> However, Ubuntu and Fedora took different approaches to fixing it.
> Ubuntu seems to have jumped on one of Jesse Barnes' early attempts to
> fix the problem (Jesse works for RH, hence the Red Hat link). In the
> end, though, if you read the upstream bug, Jesse ceded to Kristian
> Høgsberg (who, for the record, works for Intel), who provided a better
> fix which was committed to upstream. For Fedora 13, we took Kristian's
> fix, not any of Jesse's attempts. This was included in
> xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-7.fc13 . That seems to have caused a couple of
> problems with compositing managers:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584832
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577142
>
> -7 was sent as a candidate update for F13, got bad Bodhi feedback (as
> you'd expect) and was withdrawn; it never went into the 'stable' F13
> repo (the one from which the final F13 will actually be built). The bugs
> were fixed by adding one more upstream patch, from Michel Dänzer:
>
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/xorg-x11-server/F-13/xserver-1.8.0-dri2-fix-handling-of-redirected-pixmaps.patch?view=markup
>
> to xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-8.fc13 . That build has good feedback:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-8.fc13
>
> and was pushed to F13 updates two days ago. So in summary our processes
> worked very well, we didn't jump on an incomplete fix, we didn't push
> the initial upstream fix to the 'stable' F13 because our feedback system
> made us aware of the problems it caused, we did push the fully-working
> fixed package when it was confirmed ready, and we were never at any
> point subject to the memory leak issue. This is actually quite a nice
> story of our QA processes working effectively, if someone's looking for
> such a thing. =)
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> marketing mailing list
> marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

--
Nelson Marques
Evil Clown (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm)

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:46 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:38 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> Press Release? 8)

I'm not sure if it's worth that; so far I haven't seen any story which
actually comes out and claims the bug is in Fedora. I just wanted to
provide an explanation in case it comes up. There was one comment on a
fairly obscure news article -
http://techie-buzz.com/foss/ubuntu-10-04-lucid-lynx-hit-by-major-memory-leak-problem.html - which claimed Fedora was affected, but that's all.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-27-2010, 11:49 PM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's worth that; so far I haven't seen any story which
> actually comes out and claims the bug is in Fedora. I just wanted to
> provide an explanation in case it comes up. There was one comment on a
> fairly obscure news article -
> http://techie-buzz.com/foss/ubuntu-10-04-lucid-lynx-hit-by-major-memory-leak-problem.html - which claimed Fedora was affected, but that's all.

Blame me for that obscure blog.

Hopeful this all blows over and the notoriety that the Ubuntu big has
gotten in the last few days doesn't morph into some sort of "common
knowledge" that Red Hat/Fedora has this bug and Ubuntu ended up
catching it and we didn't. The wording of the launchpad ticket leaves
a lot of room to make poor judgements about the pedigree of this
particular patchset. As evidenced in the comments of that blog
article.

phoronix I think is the oldest article I can find from April 21st and
I think other blogs have picked it up from there and are
rebroadcacsting it . Blogs being what they are, I really don't want
to see the poor choice of wording in the Launchpad ticket get
mischaracterized in an effort to sensationalize a story and drive blog
readership at the expense of... reality.

And In case this ends up infesting back channel communications like
blog comment areas, twitter or irc...any place where crowdsourced
misinformation breeds and propagates... I do not want comments like
the one in that blog to be repeated without having a rebuttal a quick
google search away. Does it need to be a press release? No. It's not
really appropriate to rub Debian or Ubuntu's noses in picking up an
intermediate patchset and running with it. But having an easily
searchable wiki page at hand for reference would be something nice to
have...just in case I need to politely educate someone who chooses to
make statements not supported by fact.

But I do like the QA story about how our testing repository worked to
help iterate a solution inside our new pre-release branching workflow.
That's a nice positive story. If we can tell it without referencing
the problems others have had in this area, I think that would be a
good positive affirmation for our QA team and the new workflow
introduced in F13.

-jef
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-28-2010, 12:03 AM
Nelson Marques
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

Good approach. If you allow me a quote:

"Before all else, be armed" - Nicollo Machiavelli

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 15:49 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it's worth that; so far I haven't seen any story which
> > actually comes out and claims the bug is in Fedora. I just wanted to
> > provide an explanation in case it comes up. There was one comment on a
> > fairly obscure news article -
> > http://techie-buzz.com/foss/ubuntu-10-04-lucid-lynx-hit-by-major-memory-leak-problem.html - which claimed Fedora was affected, but that's all.
>
> Blame me for that obscure blog.
>
> Hopeful this all blows over and the notoriety that the Ubuntu big has
> gotten in the last few days doesn't morph into some sort of "common
> knowledge" that Red Hat/Fedora has this bug and Ubuntu ended up
> catching it and we didn't. The wording of the launchpad ticket leaves
> a lot of room to make poor judgements about the pedigree of this
> particular patchset. As evidenced in the comments of that blog
> article.
>
> phoronix I think is the oldest article I can find from April 21st and
> I think other blogs have picked it up from there and are
> rebroadcacsting it . Blogs being what they are, I really don't want
> to see the poor choice of wording in the Launchpad ticket get
> mischaracterized in an effort to sensationalize a story and drive blog
> readership at the expense of... reality.
>
> And In case this ends up infesting back channel communications like
> blog comment areas, twitter or irc...any place where crowdsourced
> misinformation breeds and propagates... I do not want comments like
> the one in that blog to be repeated without having a rebuttal a quick
> google search away. Does it need to be a press release? No. It's not
> really appropriate to rub Debian or Ubuntu's noses in picking up an
> intermediate patchset and running with it. But having an easily
> searchable wiki page at hand for reference would be something nice to
> have...just in case I need to politely educate someone who chooses to
> make statements not supported by fact.
>
> But I do like the QA story about how our testing repository worked to
> help iterate a solution inside our new pre-release branching workflow.
> That's a nice positive story. If we can tell it without referencing
> the problems others have had in this area, I think that would be a
> good positive affirmation for our QA team and the new workflow
> introduced in F13.
>
> -jef

--
Nelson Marques
Evil Clown (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm)

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-28-2010, 12:33 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:30 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:

> However, Ubuntu and Fedora took different approaches to fixing it.
> Ubuntu seems to have jumped on one of Jesse Barnes' early attempts to
> fix the problem (Jesse works for RH, hence the Red Hat link). In the

Correction: Jesse in fact works for Intel. Apologies for the mistake.
Thanks to Matthew Garrett for the correction.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:07 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 15:49 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> But I do like the QA story about how our testing repository worked to
> help iterate a solution inside our new pre-release branching workflow.
> That's a nice positive story. If we can tell it without referencing
> the problems others have had in this area, I think that would be a
> good positive affirmation for our QA team and the new workflow
> introduced in F13.

Sure, that'd be nice. Feel free to build on my blog. I hope it doesn't
come across as too anti-Ubuntu, that wasn't a conscious intention of
mine in writing it, I just wanted to emphasize that Ubuntu and Fedora
chose different patches (and hence got different bugs) . To give
Ubuntu credit, they seem to have resolved their issue rapidly too,
within their own process.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-28-2010, 04:47 AM
"Jan Wildeboer"
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

With all the facts so nicely laid out, it definitely is worth a blog entry.
I would paint it as "a day in the life of community-driven QA" and focus on
the whole story. With a short sentence on how the patch we ignored caused
some problems in that other distro with a link to the ubuntu leak story.

That way makes sure it will get connected and indexed in the right context
but readers will see that this is really just sth worth mentioning, not
worth discussing.

I can write it on my blog (http://jan.wildeboer.net) as google seemingly
likes my blog and puts it quite high in its ranking.



Jan

----- Original Message -----
From: marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org
<marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org>
To: For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base
<marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Tue Apr 27 20:33:58 2010
Subject: Re: Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:30 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:

> However, Ubuntu and Fedora took different approaches to fixing it.
> Ubuntu seems to have jumped on one of Jesse Barnes' early attempts to
> fix the problem (Jesse works for RH, hence the Red Hat link). In the

Correction: Jesse in fact works for Intel. Apologies for the mistake.
Thanks to Matthew Garrett for the correction.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:56 PM
threethirty
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 01:33 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:30 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > However, Ubuntu and Fedora took different approaches to fixing it.
> > Ubuntu seems to have jumped on one of Jesse Barnes' early attempts to
> > fix the problem (Jesse works for RH, hence the Red Hat link). In the
>
> Correction: Jesse in fact works for Intel. Apologies for the mistake.
> Thanks to Matthew Garrett for the correction.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>

so who does Kristian Høgsberg work for? I have a blog post that needs
correcting

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-28-2010, 02:02 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Quick heads-up: Ubuntu memory leak issue

On 04/28/2010 07:26 PM, threethirty wrote:
> so who does Kristian Høgsberg work for? I have a blog post that needs
> correcting
>

He used to work for Red Hat until recently (developed AIGLX, Wayland
etc) and now works for Intel.

Rahul

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28 PM.

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