2:39 a.m.
Looking for thoughts on this.
What would the Freemedia\Ambassadors think,
if we cannot include Unity-Respins as full Project sponsored spins.
Could we try work on them as an upgrade option.
John (inode) voiced something similar previously:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-January/msg0...
Where requester is sent the Official Media,
and the closest Unity-spin to the request date.
It will cost ambassadors a bit extra on media\time\p+p.
But it will save the requester time\money, and
give them a fairly concurrent box.
If feedback is positive, would others be willing to help me bring this
forward, to the relevant groups\committees?
Frank
12:38 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Frank Murphy
<frankly3d(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Looking for thoughts on this.
What would the Freemedia\Ambassadors think,
if we cannot include Unity-Respins as full Project sponsored spins.
Could we try work on them as an upgrade option.
John (inode) voiced something similar previously:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-January/msg0...
Where requester is sent the Official Media,
and the closest Unity-spin to the request date.
It will cost ambassadors a bit extra on media\time\p+p.
But it will save the requester time\money, and
give them a fairly concurrent box.
If feedback is positive, would others be willing to help me bring this
forward, to the relevant groups\committees?
Frank
I am a newcomer to the free media program, since December 2008. I am
here to help. At this point I have more questions than opinions. Sure
there are some historical background that is unknown for me. I think
it is better to ask early than to complain later. I will love to be
able to distribute media up-to-date, to save people (me included) from
having to download 500+ Mb to update a fresh install. Specially where
internet connections does not help much to speed update.
It is Unity re-spin official fedora?
Unity re-spin is available using jigdo, or at least it seems to be.
Why there is no jigdo for official media?
Again, maybe there is a good answer to those questions, but it is
unknown to me (most likely because I am a newcomer). One of my
concern, representing fedora to the public, is to give the proper
response. Providing official media is one of those proper responses.
Again I will like to continue to help the free-media program. I am
just asking to obtain a better understanding. Hope, that I stir debate
a bit and help a better solution for the free-media program.
Best regards
--
Neville
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Yn1v
Linux User # 473217
12:51 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Frank Murphy
<frankly3d(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Looking for thoughts on this.
What would the Freemedia\Ambassadors think,
if we cannot include Unity-Respins as full Project sponsored spins.
Could we try work on them as an upgrade option.
John (inode) voiced something similar previously:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-January/msg0...
Where requester is sent the Official Media,
and the closest Unity-spin to the request date.
It will cost ambassadors a bit extra on media\time\p+p.
But it will save the requester time\money, and
give them a fairly concurrent box.
If feedback is positive, would others be willing to help me bring this
forward, to the relevant groups\committees?
I don't see any reason that they can't just be another option those
requesting media can choose, and those fulfilling requests can accept
or not as they choose. If they want the official media they request
it, if they would rather have a re-spin they request that.
Why would someone want both?
John
1:01 p.m.
2009/1/30 Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)fedoraproject.org>:
Looking for thoughts on this.
What would the Freemedia\Ambassadors think,
if we cannot include Unity-Respins as full Project sponsored spins.
Could we try work on them as an upgrade option.
John (inode) voiced something similar previously:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-January/msg0...
Where requester is sent the Official Media,
and the closest Unity-spin to the request date.
It will cost ambassadors a bit extra on media\time\p+p.
But it will save the requester time\money, and
give them a fairly concurrent box.
The idea is interesting, but I want to know if something like this
could be useful. We have a new release each 6 month, and, generally
local contacts or other entities burn CDs/DVDs in bulk so the cost are
less that produce more time a small quantity of media. If I'm not
wrong re-spins are released after 3 months, this means, we will have
to cover each FY 4 releases (official and re-spins) and this means the
cost will be more.
BTW, if there are reasonable points, I think we can cosider it, maybe
a suggestion from a legal POV and/or a Board opinion could better help
having a decision. What I think is that, finally, we will have 4
releases, but 2 of them aren't releases but upgraded version.
If feedback is positive, would others be willing to help me bring
this
forward, to the relevant groups\committees?
If the arguments will be in favour of such initiative, stay sure
FAmSCo will directly support it, asking Board and, if there will be no
legal or other obstacles, we will work distributing resource to allow
this production.
Regards
Francesco Ugolini
1:19 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Francesco Ugolini
<fugolini(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
2009/1/30 Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)fedoraproject.org>:
> Looking for thoughts on this.
>
> What would the Freemedia\Ambassadors think,
> if we cannot include Unity-Respins as full Project sponsored spins.
> Could we try work on them as an upgrade option.
>
>
> John (inode) voiced something similar previously:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-January/msg0...
>
> Where requester is sent the Official Media,
> and the closest Unity-spin to the request date.
>
> It will cost ambassadors a bit extra on media\time\p+p.
> But it will save the requester time\money, and
> give them a fairly concurrent box.
The idea is interesting, but I want to know if something like this
could be useful. We have a new release each 6 month, and, generally
local contacts or other entities burn CDs/DVDs in bulk so the cost are
less that produce more time a small quantity of media. If I'm not
wrong re-spins are released after 3 months, this means, we will have
to cover each FY 4 releases (official and re-spins) and this means the
cost will be more.
It is more for people like me who burn some each month to send out. We
can burn the re-spins just as easily and they generally are more
useful to someone without a connection to the internet or with a very
slow connection since after even 1 month there are a ton of updates
pending from the official media. I only burn the media when I have
requests pending for it, I don't stockpile it ahead of time.
BTW, if there are reasonable points, I think we can cosider it,
maybe
a suggestion from a legal POV and/or a Board opinion could better help
having a decision. What I think is that, finally, we will have 4
releases, but 2 of them aren't releases but upgraded version.
I raised this question at a public board meeting and there seemed to
be no objection as long as it was offered as a choice and it was made
clear what it was.
> If feedback is positive, would others be willing to help me bring
this
> forward, to the relevant groups\committees?
If the arguments will be in favour of such initiative, stay sure
FAmSCo will directly support it, asking Board and, if there will be no
legal or other obstacles, we will work distributing resource to allow
this production.
I don't see any downside to supporting re-spins as an option. We offer
both at times at booths and the re-spins fly out the door as fast as
they can be burned.
John
1:26 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:19 PM, inode0 <inode0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see any downside to supporting re-spins as an option. We offer
both at times at booths and the re-spins fly out the door as fast as
they can be burned.
John
So, it seems a doable things, with few resources required and a lot of
benefits from the community: from my own side nothing against.
Regards
Francesco Ugolini
p.s. I've added this topic in my agenda, I hope to be able to remember
it for next week FAmSCo meeting, meanwhile more feedbacks are welcomed
(at least to have a wide view of what community think about this
idea).
1:35 p.m.
inode0 wrote:
I don't see any reason that they can't just be another option those
requesting media can choose, and those fulfilling requests can accept
or not as they choose. If they want the official media they request
it, if they would rather have a re-spin they request that.
Why would someone want both?
The reason I stated both, is that at the moment:
1:Currently the FedoraProject stands over the Official Media,
not the re-spins, that may change hopefully.
2: They will in all likelyhood, get the Official to install,
2b: if not they will get all the hints etc via various outlets.
2c: If they fail on Unity-respins, would it be all thrown back
there to help? Which could\may overwhelm them (Unity-Volunteers).
Which imho would suck.
Frank
1:45 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Frank Murphy
<frankly3d(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
inode0 wrote:
>
>
> I don't see any reason that they can't just be another option those
> requesting media can choose, and those fulfilling requests can accept
> or not as they choose. If they want the official media they request
> it, if they would rather have a re-spin they request that.
>
> Why would someone want both?
>
The reason I stated both, is that at the moment:
1:Currently the FedoraProject stands over the Official Media,
not the re-spins, that may change hopefully.
2: They will in all likelyhood, get the Official to install,
2b: if not they will get all the hints etc via various outlets.
2c: If they fail on Unity-respins, would it be all thrown back
there to help? Which could\may overwhelm them (Unity-Volunteers).
Which imho would suck.
Yeah, ok. How well tested re-spins are before they get pushed is the
one reasonable argument I've heard against this. I'm not saying they
aren't well tested, but I don't really know how well tested they are.
Are there many people in general who have issues with the re-spins not
working on their hardware?
John
1:55 p.m.
inode0 wrote:
Yeah, ok. How well tested re-spins are before they get pushed is the
one reasonable argument I've heard against this.
At the moment these are unknowns.
I'm not saying they
aren't well tested, but I don't really know how well tested
they are.
Are there many people in general who have issues with the re-spins not
working on their hardware?
John
But in the interim, they should work as a pure "update" disk\stick
whatever. I will try liaise with the Unity ppl,
see what sort of feedback they have had, re the re-spins.
Frank
3:41 p.m.
Neville A. Cross wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Frank Murphy
<frankly3d(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Looking for thoughts on this.
>
> What would the Freemedia\Ambassadors think,
> if we cannot include Unity-Respins as full Project sponsored spins.
> Could we try work on them as an upgrade option.
>
>
> John (inode) voiced something similar previously:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-January/msg0...
>
> Where requester is sent the Official Media,
> and the closest Unity-spin to the request date.
>
> It will cost ambassadors a bit extra on media\time\p+p.
> But it will save the requester time\money, and
> give them a fairly concurrent box.
>
> If feedback is positive, would others be willing to help me bring this
> forward, to the relevant groups\committees?
>
> Frank
>
I am a newcomer to the free media program, since December 2008. I am
here to help. At this point I have more questions than opinions. Sure
there are some historical background that is unknown for me. I think
it is better to ask early than to complain later. I will love to be
able to distribute media up-to-date, to save people (me included) from
having to download 500+ Mb to update a fresh install. Specially where
internet connections does not help much to speed update.
It is Unity re-spin official fedora?
The Fedora Unity Re-Spins are not official Fedora media, but we do have
trademark approval from the board so that it can be called "Fedora".
Unity re-spin is available using jigdo, or at least it seems to be.
Why there is no jigdo for official media?
Actually there is jigdo's for the official media.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
3:44 p.m.
inode0 wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Frank Murphy
<frankly3d(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> inode0 wrote:
>>
>> I don't see any reason that they can't just be another option those
>> requesting media can choose, and those fulfilling requests can accept
>> or not as they choose. If they want the official media they request
>> it, if they would rather have a re-spin they request that.
>>
>> Why would someone want both?
>>
> The reason I stated both, is that at the moment:
> 1:Currently the FedoraProject stands over the Official Media,
> not the re-spins, that may change hopefully.
>
> 2: They will in all likelyhood, get the Official to install,
> 2b: if not they will get all the hints etc via various outlets.
> 2c: If they fail on Unity-respins, would it be all thrown back
> there to help? Which could\may overwhelm them (Unity-Volunteers).
> Which imho would suck.
Yeah, ok. How well tested re-spins are before they get pushed is the
one reasonable argument I've heard against this. I'm not saying they
aren't well tested, but I don't really know how well tested they are.
Are there many people in general who have issues with the re-spins not
working on their hardware?
For the record, the Fedora Unity Re-Spins are very well tested; We use
the same test cases as Fedora QA does for a given release, and often add
additional tests for things we think may have been fixed in the various
applications related to the installation procedures, and even fix those
ourselves if need be.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
3:51 p.m.
Frank Murphy wrote:
But in the interim, they should work as a pure "update"
disk\stick
whatever. I will try liaise with the Unity ppl,
see what sort of feedback they have had, re the re-spins.
I'm both the composer of the Fedora Unity Re-Spins, as well as an
Ambassador to the Fedora Project, like lots of the people within Fedora
Unity, so I'll be watching this thread as well ;-)
The feedback on Fedora Unity Re-Spins vary;
Some people are very, very much appreciative to the fixes that are in
the Fedora Unity Re-Spins, because they enable them to install or deploy
Fedora in a way that turned out to not be possible with GA media
(General Availability media). Things that are fixed in the Fedora Unity
Re-Spins may vary from i586 hardware compatibility, to simple fixes in
pykickstart that simply needed to be during the media compose.
Some people come in #fedora-unity on FreeNode or log in to
bugs.fedoraunity.org explicitly requesting we fix a certain issue with
the next release of our Re-Spins, which, if we find their use-case
appealing and if we think we can fix it (and test the fix), we'll
happily do.
Some people come in #fedora-unity or mail us requesting when the next
Re-Spin is to be released, and/or whether we are planning on doing a
Re-Spin for a given Fedora release any time soon.
Needless to say, the Fedora Unity Re-Spins are often much anticipated
for by the community, as well as utilized a great deal (we see thousands
of downloads a month).
This, for Fedora Unity at least, are the reasons, amongst others, we
think make it very much worth our efforts in creating and testing and
distributing the Re-Spins. Whether it is something the FreeMedia program
wishes to adopt when distributing Fedora amongst those that request Free
Media, is up to you ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
3:51 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com> wrote:
inode0 wrote:
> Yeah, ok. How well tested re-spins are before they get pushed is the
> one reasonable argument I've heard against this. I'm not saying they
> aren't well tested, but I don't really know how well tested they are.
> Are there many people in general who have issues with the re-spins not
> working on their hardware?
>
For the record, the Fedora Unity Re-Spins are very well tested; We use the
same test cases as Fedora QA does for a given release, and often add
additional tests for things we think may have been fixed in the various
applications related to the installation procedures, and even fix those
ourselves if need be.
Brilliant! Thanks for clearing that up. Now I have heard no good
arguments against proceeding with this as an option for the freemedia
program. :)
John
2:29 a.m.
Hello,
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 22:44 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
For the record, the Fedora Unity Re-Spins are very well tested; We
use
the same test cases as Fedora QA does for a given release, and often add
additional tests for things we think may have been fixed in the various
applications related to the installation procedures, and even fix those
ourselves if need be.
Are these test cases/procedures available somewhere? I'm interested in
them for my own remixes :)
Thanks
Steven
2:59 a.m.
Steven Moix wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 22:44 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> For the record, the Fedora Unity Re-Spins are very well tested; We use
> the same test cases as Fedora QA does for a given release, and often add
> additional tests for things we think may have been fixed in the various
> applications related to the installation procedures, and even fix those
> ourselves if need be.
Are these test cases/procedures available somewhere? I'm interested in
them for my own remixes :)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Installer_Test_Cases
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
5563
days inactive
5565
days old
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
14 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Francesco Ugolini -
Francesco Ugolini -
Frank Murphy -
inode0 -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Neville A. Cross -
Steven Moix