gnome 2.9

[Patricio Bruna V]

would gnome 2.9 be available for fc3 or fedora devel?

-- 
Patricio Bruna                                  http://www.linuxcenterla.com
Ingeniero de Proyectos                  Canada # 239 Piso 5
Red Hat Certified Engineer              Providencia, Santiago - CHILE
Linux Center Latinoamerica              Fono: [phone], Fax : [phone]

[David Corrigan]

I new to Fedora but from what I've gathered Fedora needs to have a
stable release soon. Upgrading something of that magnitude right
before a major release probably shouldn't happen till the next test
version.

David


On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:13:48 -0300, Patricio Bruna V.
<pbruna(a)linuxcenterla.com&gt; wrote:
>  would gnome 2.9 be available for fc3 or fedora devel?
>  
>  --
>  Patricio Bruna                                  http://www.linuxcenterla.com
>  Ingeniero de Proyectos                  Canada # 239 Piso 5
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer              Providencia, Santiago - CHILE
>  Linux Center Latinoamerica              Fono: [phone], Fax : [phone]
>  
>  
>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>  
>  
>

[Paul F. Johnson]

Hi,

>  would gnome 2.9 be available for fc3 or fedora devel? 
rawhide. I have a feeling that other than minor stuff (unless there is a
security hole) that things are stuck now as FC3 is due to hit the
streets in 5 days IIRC

TTFN

Paul
-- 
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing" - Det. Sledgehammer

[Rodd Clarkson]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 00:13 -0300, Patricio Bruna V. wrote:
>  would gnome 2.9 be available for fc3 or fedora devel? 
GNOME uses similar versioning to the kernel.

So 2.8 is a stable release, and 2.9 is a development release.  As such,
you don't want to be using 2.9.x unless you are willing to test gnome as
it heads for a stable release 2.10

I'm fairly confident that 2.10 will be included in FC4 since they have
similar release schedules.


Rodd

>  
>  -- 
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list 
-- 
> From the pain come the dream
> From the dream come the vision
> From the vision come the people
> From the people come the power
> From this power come the change 
                         - Peter Gabriel

[Havoc Pennington]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:25 +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>  On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 00:13 -0300, Patricio Bruna V. wrote:
>  > would gnome 2.9 be available for fc3 or fedora devel?
>  
>  GNOME uses similar versioning to the kernel.
>  
>  So 2.8 is a stable release, and 2.9 is a development release.  As such,
>  you don't want to be using 2.9.x unless you are willing to test gnome as
>  it heads for a stable release 2.10
>  
>  I'm fairly confident that 2.10 will be included in FC4 since they have
>  similar release schedules. 
Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6 months, people
could decide to do shorter.

Havoc

FC4 schedule (was Re: gnome 2.9)

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 11:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6 months,
> people
>  could decide to do shorter. 
yeah I can see the point of doing a short cycle for FC4, once in a while
it's good to do a "mostly bugfixes" release to get basic quality
higher....

and another great feature to get out early will be the new GCC buffer
overflow checking features.

Sounds like Late January/ early February would be a nice date for a
followup release....

FC4 schedule (was Re: gnome 2.9)

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 05:50:18PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>  On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 11:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  > Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6 months, people
>  > could decide to do shorter.
>  
>  yeah I can see the point of doing a short cycle for FC4, once in a while
>  it's good to do a "mostly bugfixes" release to get basic quality
>  higher....
>  
>  and another great feature to get out early will be the new GCC buffer
>  overflow checking features.
>  
>  Sounds like Late January/ early February would be a nice date for a
>  followup release.... 
It would be good to have FC5 GCC 4.0 based though, and the schedule
is unclear there.
GCC 4.0 is tentatively early 2005, but I'm not that sure it will be
out in mid February.

	Jakub

FC4 schedule (was Re: gnome 2.9)

[Kyrre Ness Sjobak]

Same goes for OpenOffice 2.0

ons, 03.11.2004 kl. 17.58 skrev Jakub Jelinek:
>  On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 05:50:18PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>  > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 11:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  > > Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6 months, people
>  > > could decide to do shorter.
>  > 
>  > yeah I can see the point of doing a short cycle for FC4, once in a while
>  > it's good to do a "mostly bugfixes" release to get basic quality
>  > higher....
>  > 
>  > and another great feature to get out early will be the new GCC buffer
>  > overflow checking features.
>  > 
>  > Sounds like Late January/ early February would be a nice date for a
>  > followup release....
>  
>  It would be good to have FC5 GCC 4.0 based though, and the schedule
>  is unclear there.
>  GCC 4.0 is tentatively early 2005, but I'm not that sure it will be
>  out in mid February.
>  
>  	Jakub

[seth vidal]

>  Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6 months,
> people
>  could decide to do shorter. 
"People". Oh cmon. Y'all decide the schedule. It's not
"people".

-sv

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 11:55 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>  > Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6
> months, people
>  > could decide to do shorter.
>  
>  "People". Oh cmon. Y'all decide the schedule. It's not
> "people". 
Point of having this discussion on an open list is so that people can
voice their opinions and everyone can hear them.  This isn't RHEL we're
talking about.

Dan

[Havoc Pennington]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 11:55 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>  > Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6
> months, people
>  > could decide to do shorter.
>  
>  "People". Oh cmon. Y'all decide the schedule. It's not
> "people".
>   
*I* don't decide it, anyhow. ;-)

Seriously, Red Hat has certain parameters (listed at
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html), but within those it
really is flexible.

Havoc

[Jef Spaleta]

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:47:21 -0500, Havoc Pennington <hp(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Seriously, Red Hat has certain parameters (listed at
>  http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html), but within those it
>  really is flexible. 
<broken_record>
it COULD be flexible, but right now there is no publicly communicable
structure as to "community" leadership. The outline of project
leadership on the website has never gotten past the draft document
state... no one from outside red hat has any defined roles or
responsibilities, nor is there anything close to a plan on how to move
volunteers into and out of any roles of responsibilities when it comes
to project policy and planning. Right now, afaict, its very much a
centralized top-down decision process, very little is delegated or
tasked out for community teams to decide.

People in the community have varying degrees of input in discussion to
decision making, depending on the degree of access they have to
internal project leadership. Sure everyone can express their opinion
as to what's going on, but there is no clear, public role for
community leadership to take when it comes to "deciding", no clear
role in setting the agenda or planning, no teams of hand selected
volunteers tasked with even minor policy decision making within the
acceptable solutionspace parameters laid down by Red Hat employees.

What's going on here, isn't flexibility decision-making, this is
simply an open discussion to acquire feedback that can either be acted
upon or ignored, where the decision makers hear all or some of the
expressed opinions and the choose a course of action.  While open
discussion is not a bad thing, and has its place, I think its
disingenuous to suggest that community feedback means community
decision-making.
</broken_record>

-jef"Look! on the side of the road a dead horse! Let's go beat it!"spaleta

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:31:16 -0500, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  What's going on here, isn't flexibility decision-making, this is
>  simply an open discussion to acquire feedback that can either be acted
>  upon or ignored, where the decision makers hear all or some of the
>  expressed opinions and the choose a course of action.  While open
>  discussion is not a bad thing, and has its place, I think its
>  disingenuous to suggest that community feedback means community
>  decision-making.
>  </broken_record>
>  
>  -jef"Look! on the side of the road a dead horse! Let's go beat it!"spaleta
>  
>  
>   
As much as I like Red Hat, and know what its like on the inside... (or
knew).. I have to use a Mr Szuliks phrase: "Amen Brother". This has
got to stop. I would rather see FC4 get put off for 6 months and the
real issues of community building fixed by February than just watch
this poor dead horse get covered in napalm and savaged by people
again.

>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>   

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator

[Jef Spaleta]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:06:33 -0700, Stephen J. Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  As much as I like Red Hat, and know what its like on the inside...
> (or
>  knew).. I have to use a Mr Szuliks phrase: "Amen Brother". This has
>  got to stop. I would rather see FC4 get put off for 6 months and the
>  real issues of community building fixed by February than just watch
>  this poor dead horse get covered in napalm and savaged by people
>  again. 
+1

If this is am open discussion about the FC4 schedule. I would
personally prefer to see a SLOW release cycle so the non-technical
issues, the community facing policy/organizational issues can finally
get some needed high priority allocation from inside the fenceline.

In terms of what is important in the long term health of fedora as a
community project and not just a collection of code.. time needs to be
made by the primaries inside Red Hat to deal the issues of how
community is actually going to be invited and encouraged to be
invovled beyond upstream component developers. Pushing a quick fc4
schedule is NOT going to make it easier to deal with any community
contributor/leadership issues... real or imagined, outstanding or
looming.

As much as i appreciate and respect the fact that a lot of work has
needed to be done inhouse to open up the technical tools for community
contributors to get access to code and buildsystem. Having the
technical tools like an open cvs are not going to help deal with the
issue on how to manage and recruit volunteers with less overtly
codemonkey tasks. It's debatable when the best time to strongly press
the point, before or after the technical work to open up the
buildsystem is completed. So I offer this as a friendly reminder and
as a kindly display of loyal opposition to the current red hat
internal priorities for the fedora project. There needs to be a
schedule and a plan to deal with volunteer management issues.

-jef"is getting too comfortable playing the role of loyal opposition
in so many different venues"spaleta

[Havoc Pennington]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 19:17 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>  
>  As much as i appreciate and respect the fact that a lot of work has
>  needed to be done inhouse to open up the technical tools for community
>  contributors to get access to code and buildsystem. Having the
>  technical tools like an open cvs are not going to help deal with the
>  issue on how to manage and recruit volunteers with less overtly
>  codemonkey tasks. It's debatable when the best time to strongly press
>  the point, before or after the technical work to open up the
>  buildsystem is completed. So I offer this as a friendly reminder and
>  as a kindly display of loyal opposition to the current red hat
>  internal priorities for the fedora project. There needs to be a
>  schedule and a plan to deal with volunteer management issues. 
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but one thing I would argue is
that opening up the technical tools is absolutely central.

To me a key question is "can you have an external package maintainer?"
(and parallel questions like "can you have external translators," etc.)

Because the governance and decision making should be based on
maintainers/contributors, and that means there's no outside decision
making until you have a way for outsiders to be maintainers and
contributors. Of course people are contributing today, but there are
certain limits on what they can do from outside Red Hat.

It's not like most open source projects have any formal decision making
policy. It's really rough consensus of the core contributors.

Only my personal opinion, and I probably haven't heard many of the
discussions around this topic.

Havoc

[seth vidal]

>  I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but one thing I would
> argue is
>  that opening up the technical tools is absolutely central.
>  
>  To me a key question is "can you have an external package maintainer?"
>  (and parallel questions like "can you have external translators," etc.)
>  
>  Because the governance and decision making should be based on
>  maintainers/contributors, and that means there's no outside decision
>  making until you have a way for outsiders to be maintainers and
>  contributors. Of course people are contributing today, but there are
>  certain limits on what they can do from outside Red Hat.
>  
>  It's not like most open source projects have any formal decision making
>  policy. It's really rough consensus of the core contributors. 
I know this is not the most functional example - but big projects like
distributions and other large projects do have some established
hierarchy - and sometimes they have a process for making those
decisions.

-sv

[Havoc Pennington]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:33 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>  
>  I know this is not the most functional example - but big projects like
>  distributions and other large projects do have some established
>  hierarchy - and sometimes they have a process for making those
>  decisions. 
Yeah. I'm a little reluctant to get into which projects I think have
good structures and which ones I think suck, since I have this fear of
ending up on Slashdot or something ;-) plus I may just be ignorant of
many of them.

I do think we need some structure, don't get me wrong. And I'd like to
see it defined. I was also sufficiently involved in defining the GNOME
structure to know whether or not I have time to be in charge of defining
this one ;-)

At the same time I think structure is partly overrated, it does come
down to the individual people and how they get along. If you're taking a
lot of votes it's a bad sign...

Havoc

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:48 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:33 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>  > 
>  > I know this is not the most functional example - but big projects like
>  > distributions and other large projects do have some established
>  > hierarchy - and sometimes they have a process for making those
>  > decisions.
>  
>  Yeah. I'm a little reluctant to get into which projects I think have
>  good structures and which ones I think suck, since I have this fear of
>  ending up on Slashdot or something ;-) plus I may just be ignorant of
>  many of them. 
I don't want to discuss what projects have good structures either. I
think it is more valuable to discuss this projects structure :)


>  I do think we need some structure, don't get me wrong. And
> I'd like to
>  see it defined. I was also sufficiently involved in defining the GNOME
>  structure to know whether or not I have time to be in charge of defining
>  this one ;-) 
So where do we go? How do we make aspects of the structure more
transparent - even one-way glass so users can see in would be okay.


>  At the same time I think structure is partly overrated, it does come
>  down to the individual people and how they get along. If you're taking a
>  lot of votes it's a bad sign... 

I agree. too much voting is silly, but maybe hearing more from the
steering and technical committee that already exist is not silly.

what do you think?

-sv

[Havoc Pennington]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 22:13 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>  
>  I agree. too much voting is silly, but maybe hearing more from the
>  steering and technical committee that already exist is not silly.
>  
>  what do you think? 
Well yes, as you know my personal bias is toward writing a lot of
email/blogs/etc. ... ;-)

Havoc

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 23:02 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 22:13 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>  > 
>  > I agree. too much voting is silly, but maybe hearing more from the
>  > steering and technical committee that already exist is not silly.
>  > 
>  > what do you think?
>  
>  Well yes, as you know my personal bias is toward writing a lot of
>  email/blogs/etc. ... ;-) 
Do you think you can get the other people on the various committees to
talk a bit more? :)

-sv

[Pedro Morais]

Em Quinta, 4 de Novembro de 2004 01:22, Havoc Pennington escreveu:
>  To me a key question is "can you have an external package
> maintainer?"
>  (and parallel questions like "can you have external translators," etc.) 
Oh, but you do have external translators. I've (and a lot of other people) had 
access to a CVS server to commit translations since before the Fedora days.

	Morais

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 09:28:14AM +0000, Pedro Morais wrote:
>  Oh, but you do have external translators. I've (and a lot of
> other people) had 
>  access to a CVS server to commit translations since before the Fedora days. 
But only to commit translations. There lies a big difference.

[Havoc Pennington]

On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 09:28 +0000, Pedro Morais wrote:
>  Em Quinta, 4 de Novembro de 2004 01:22, Havoc Pennington escreveu:
>  > To me a key question is "can you have an external package maintainer?"
>  > (and parallel questions like "can you have external translators," etc.)
>  
>  Oh, but you do have external translators. I've (and a lot of other people) had 
>  access to a CVS server to commit translations since before the Fedora days.
>   
I know, I was trying to include a question with a positive answer ;-)

Havoc

[Rodd Clarkson]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 11:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:25 +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>  > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 00:13 -0300, Patricio Bruna V. wrote:
>  > > would gnome 2.9 be available for fc3 or fedora devel?
>  > 
>  > GNOME uses similar versioning to the kernel.
>  > 
>  > So 2.8 is a stable release, and 2.9 is a development release.  As such,
>  > you don't want to be using 2.9.x unless you are willing to test gnome as
>  > it heads for a stable release 2.10
>  > 
>  > I'm fairly confident that 2.10 will be included in FC4 since they have
>  > similar release schedules.
>  
>  Do we have an FC4 schedule yet? FC isn't necessarily 6 months, people
>  could decide to do shorter. 
Sorry, let me revise.  Given recent history as a guideline, I would
imagine that Gnome-2.10 will be included in FC4. ;-]


R.
-- 
> From the pain come the dream
> From the dream come the vision
> From the vision come the people
> From the people come the power
> From this power come the change 
                         - Peter Gabriel