12:21 p.m.
Forwarding to devel@, from advisory-board@.
----- Forwarded message from Matt Domsch <matt(a)domsch.com> -----
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:03:05 -0600
From: Matt Domsch <matt(a)domsch.com>
To: advisory-board(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2010-03-11
== Roll Call ==
* Present: Matt Domsch, Paul Frields, John Poelstra, Mike McGrath, Colin Walters, Josh
Boyer, Dennis Gilmore, Christopher Aillon, Chris Tyler, Tom "spot" Callaway
* Assigned meeting secretary: Matt Domsch
== Agenda ==
=== Update policy ===
https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/58
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision
* QUESTION: Is there anyone on the Board who cannot support this statement? If so, what
would have to change for you to do so?
Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should be done. Board will
take this into consideration, if necessary, in another round of discussions (not this
meeting).
John, Mike, Spot, Dennis, Matt, Josh: let's finish the Board's draft today that we
have worked on so hard all week--other proposals can be factored in later
Christopher Aillon: remove discussion about ''new packages''--this
confuses the issue; new packages are a separate topic--this is about
'''updates'''
Spot: leave ''new packages'' part in because there has been a lot
confusion around this. "New packages are not considered updates and may be handled
differently."
Dennis: "Dependency Groups of packages should be bundled together and pushed
simultaneously."
(Matt: this is due to how 'make update' works today; it needs to take multiple
packages into account if it doesn't already)
Josh, Spot, Paul: decision as to allow/disallow new packages to be introduced into stable
releases is to be left to FESCo.
* Decision: text added to Background: This policy is not meant to govern the introduction
of new packages.
* Decision: unanimous approval, remove "draft" status. Josh to publish. Paul
to email FAB list. Paul and Josh to come up with appropriate title and wiki namespace.
Paul: we know we can't please everyone. Stay polite as the next discussion flares,
but stay the course.
== Next meeting ==
* PROPOSED: Wed 2010-03-18 UTC 1700
* Next secretarial duty: Tom 'spot' Callaway
* Regrets: Matt Domsch
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
----- End forwarded message -----
12:36 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should
be
done. Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
another round of discussions (not this meeting).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
Here is the link. I'm going to start a new thread here.
Feedback welcome.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
12:52 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
Here is the link. I'm going to start a new thread here.
# Stable releases should not be used for tracking upstream
version closely when this is likely to change the user experience
beyond fixing bugs and security issues.
# Close tracking of upstream should be done in the Rawhide repo
wherever possible, and we should strive to move our patches upstream.
That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long time
to wait on new functionality after upstream released it. Even for users
running only full Fedora releases. Though I see various phrasing around
this that would allow exceptions, which is good.
Example: SHA256 support added to bind 9.6.2 less then a week ago (from
9.6.1). Bind 9.6.x is in F-12, and arpa. will be signed with SHA256 in
4 days. This leaves quite the window until F-13 is released (where users
are on bind-9.7.x that contains SHA25 already). In this case, F-12 should
really upgrade from 9.6.1 to 9.6.2.
I understand this when thinking about large sets (KDA, Gnome) or common
libraries that has too many in and out of tree dependancies (openssl 0.9x vs
openssl 1.x), but it might not always be valid.
Paul
1:02 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Paul Wouters wrote:
That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long time
to wait on new functionality after upstream released it. Even for users
running only full Fedora releases. Though I see various phrasing around
this that would allow exceptions, which is good.
Example: SHA256 support added to bind 9.6.2 less then a week ago (from
9.6.1). Bind 9.6.x is in F-12, and arpa. will be signed with SHA256 in
4 days. This leaves quite the window until F-13 is released (where users
are on bind-9.7.x that contains SHA25 already). In this case, F-12 should
really upgrade from 9.6.1 to 9.6.2.
And it will be impossible for users running the non-sha256 bind to
communicate with the sha256 supporting arpa?
I guess I don't understand what do the users of the existing bind LOSE?
Is ARPA expecting everyone to upgrade to a sha256 supporting bind
immediately? There's no migration window?
-sv
3:22 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
And it will be impossible for users running the non-sha256 bind to
communicate with the sha256 supporting arpa?
I guess I don't understand what do the users of the existing bind LOSE?
Is ARPA expecting everyone to upgrade to a sha256 supporting bind
immediately? There's no migration window?
If someone has dnssec enabled in bind including DLV, then the key will be
found and its use will be attempted. I am not sure what happens on an older
bind 9.6.1 when that happens. One will hope it will just continue to be
treated as "insecure" and not as "bogus" (aka servfail). I have not
tested
this.
But I understand your generic point. It's a feature so put it in rawhide/next
release.
Paul
3:46 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 16:22 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
> And it will be impossible for users running the non-sha256 bind to
> communicate with the sha256 supporting arpa?
>
> I guess I don't understand what do the users of the existing bind LOSE?
>
> Is ARPA expecting everyone to upgrade to a sha256 supporting bind
> immediately? There's no migration window?
If someone has dnssec enabled in bind including DLV, then the key will be
found and its use will be attempted. I am not sure what happens on an older
bind 9.6.1 when that happens. One will hope it will just continue to be
treated as "insecure" and not as "bogus" (aka servfail). I have not
tested
this.
But I understand your generic point. It's a feature so put it in rawhide/next
release.
Paul
If the case was that it would stop working badly, that falls under the
type of update I listed that depends on external data providers. That
type of update is allowed.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
8:05 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Is ARPA expecting everyone to upgrade to a sha256 supporting
bind
> immediately? There's no migration window?
If someone has dnssec enabled in bind including DLV, then the key will be
found and its use will be attempted. I am not sure what happens on an older
bind 9.6.1 when that happens. One will hope it will just continue to be
treated as "insecure" and not as "bogus" (aka servfail). I have not
tested
this.
Just for the record, 9.6.1 was patched so unknown algs go "insecure", so this
is not an issue. Sorry to distract from the main focus of this discussion with
a bad example.
Paul
1:11 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
That might be harsh for some soname updates.
If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
in a stable release.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
4:47 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> That might be harsh for some soname updates.
If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
in a stable release.
If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought to be,
we will take care of rebuilding it. Otherwise, whoever built it (some third-
party repository or the user him/herself) is responsible for rebuilding it.
This has always worked fine, I don't see the problem.
Kevin Kofler
5:36 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
> especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
> in a stable release.
If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought to be,
we will take care of rebuilding it. Otherwise, whoever built it (some third-
party repository or the user him/herself) is responsible for rebuilding it.
This has always worked fine, I don't see the problem.
What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to rebuild
because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
6:14 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Chris Adams wrote:
What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to
rebuild
because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway. Having
to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
Kevin Kofler
6:15 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 05:44 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
> What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to rebuild
> because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
> admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
>
Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway. Having
to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
No but it is often disruptive if ABI changes are in libraries in an
update and we should avoid that as much as possible. This is part of
treating Fedora as a platform instead of a loose set of packages.
Rahul
6:44 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 05:44 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
>> What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to rebuild
>> because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
>> admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
>>
> Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
> Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
>
No but it is often disruptive if ABI changes are in libraries in an
update and we should avoid that as much as possible. This is part of
treating Fedora as a platform instead of a loose set of packages.
How is it disruptive? Surely not because I have to rebuild the stuff I am
developing myself and have to compile very often anyway… If it's stuff
coming from a third-party repo, it's that repo's responsibility to rebuild
the package and get it out together with the Fedora update.
Kevin Kofler
6:52 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 06:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
How is it disruptive? Surely not because I have to rebuild the stuff I am
developing myself and have to compile very often anyway
Just because you are in a position to rebuild stuff when necessary, does
not mean that is convenient for all consumers of a library to do so and
rebuilding and pushing out updates for software outside the repository
is often problematic. Look at real life environments outside the
developer boxes that you live in. If you don't even agree with a basic
principle that breaking ABI should be avoided in updates, we don't
really have much left to discuss.
Rahul
7:22 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you don't even agree with a basic principle that breaking ABI
should be
avoided in updates, we don't really have much left to discuss.
I don't see this as being a "basic principle" at all. For an enterprise
distro like RHEL or CentOS, sure. But not for something like Fedora. What
counts is that all software in Fedora depending on the library gets rebuilt
and pushed at the same time. (That's what grouped updates are for.) We do
not support third-party software.
Kevin Kofler
7:24 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 06:52 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If you don't even agree with a basic principle that breaking ABI should be
> avoided in updates, we don't really have much left to discuss.
>
I don't see this as being a "basic principle" at all. For an enterprise
distro like RHEL or CentOS, sure. But not for something like Fedora. What
counts is that all software in Fedora depending on the library gets rebuilt
and pushed at the same time. (That's what grouped updates are for.) We do
not support third-party software.
I disagree. Imagining that we are living in a island where no software
exists outside the repository is just delusional and the assumption that
everyone has the bandwidth to deal with all that churn is wrong as
well. I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
Rahul
1:42 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Dne 12.3.2010 02:24, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
I disagree. Imagining that we are living in a island where no
software
exists outside the repository is just delusional and the assumption that
everyone has the bandwidth to deal with all that churn is wrong as
well. I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
Rahul, I used Debian, I know Debian, Debian was a friend of mine. I
don't want Fedora to be just yet another copycat of Debian. Please keep
it Fedora instead.
Matěj
P.S.: Reference is of course http://is.gd/aj75K
--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
-- Andrew Lang
2:01 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 01:12 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 12.3.2010 02:24, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
> I disagree. Imagining that we are living in a island where no software
> exists outside the repository is just delusional and the assumption that
> everyone has the bandwidth to deal with all that churn is wrong as
> well. I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
>
Rahul, I used Debian, I know Debian, Debian was a friend of mine. I
don't want Fedora to be just yet another copycat of Debian. Please keep
it Fedora instead.
Caring about ABI stability a bit more does not make Fedora, Debian or
vice versa. There are lots of other differences.
Rahul
5:06 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2010 06:52 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> If you don't even agree with a basic principle that breaking ABI should be
>> avoided in updates, we don't really have much left to discuss.
>>
> I don't see this as being a "basic principle" at all. For an
enterprise
> distro like RHEL or CentOS, sure. But not for something like Fedora. What
> counts is that all software in Fedora depending on the library gets rebuilt
> and pushed at the same time. (That's what grouped updates are for.) We do
> not support third-party software.
>
I disagree. Imagining that we are living in a island where no software
exists outside the repository is just delusional and the assumption that
everyone has the bandwidth to deal with all that churn is wrong as
well. I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
similar distro isn't for them.
If they live in dial-up-land, they should use something like RHEL,
CentOS, Debian stable or whatever.
OR they learn to read documentation, understand the packagemanagement
and how to update only security fixes.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
5:09 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
similar distro isn't for them.
I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
working out a method that satisfies more users. Breaking ABI stability
gratuitously as has been done in the destabilises the platform and
causes unnecessary churn.
If they live in dial-up-land, they should use something like RHEL,
CentOS, Debian stable or whatever.
OR they learn to read documentation, understand the packagemanagement
and how to update only security fixes.
Have you tried sticking to security updates only? If you have done
that, you will know that it still doesn't save up much because updates
often pile up. The way it is done within Fedora, security fixes are
often new major upstream versions that suck in a lot of the enhancement
updates as dependencies.
Rahul
5:33 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> similar distro isn't for them.
>
I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
working out a method that satisfies more users. Breaking ABI stability
gratuitously as has been done in the destabilises the platform and
causes unnecessary churn.
I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part.
I do understand both sides at the ABI breaking discussion.
> If they live in dial-up-land, they should use something like
RHEL,
> CentOS, Debian stable or whatever.
> OR they learn to read documentation, understand the packagemanagement
> and how to update only security fixes.
>
Have you tried sticking to security updates only? If you have done
that, you will know that it still doesn't save up much because updates
often pile up. The way it is done within Fedora, security fixes are
often new major upstream versions that suck in a lot of the enhancement
updates as dependencies.
Not every time, but can happen yes. That's why i wrote, people have to
face that and use what fits their needs.
I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
I do think some people really need to learn that testing updates is
essential and badly needed. Though that's nothing to explain the "make
Fedora more like RHEL" discussions. And now with the Boards vision it
will be.
So to be honest i can't see any reason why people still fight. It's
over from my POV. What will happen with Fedora, *shrugs*, we will see.
If you ask yourself why i answered on your post in the first place,
it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
stubborn and use Fedora (and even worse try to change it) instead of
using what fits their needs. Sorry if 'stupid' hurts someones
feelings, but that's what i think about it.
Next time i buy a car, i will buy one who gets upgrades on a regular
base, but hard for me to get it in my country. I will then complain
and cry until they start to support me well. Sure i could buy a
different car that's older and needs just a bit oil from time to time,
but hey, this is a free world, i can change anything.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
5:46 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
-snipped--
If I can be indulged.
it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
stubborn
It's not the endusers fault,
they have bad infracture.
and use Fedora
Because that is what they want.
(and even worse try to change it)
They also want to learn,
maybe eventually be in a position
to give back to the Fedora Community,
and floss in general.
instead of
using what fits their needs.
Maybe Fedora is what fits their needs?
Next time i buy a car, i will buy one who gets upgrades on a regular
base, but hard for me to get it in my country. I will then complain
and cry until they start to support me well.
Sure i could buy a
different car that's older and needs just a bit oil from time to
time,
but hey, this is a free world, i can change anything.
Apples and Oranges.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora 12, 13, Rawhide: x86_64
XFCE, LXDE.
5:56 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
-snipped--
If I can be indulged.
> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
> stubborn
It's not the endusers fault,
they have bad infracture.
Oh, so it's our fault?
and use Fedora
Because that is what they want.
I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
choose, as can they.
(and even worse try to change it)
They also want to learn,
maybe eventually be in a position
to give back to the Fedora Community,
and floss in general.
They can give back with any other distro as well, that fits their needs better.
instead of
> using what fits their needs.
Maybe Fedora is what fits their needs?
Obviously not.
> Next time i buy a car, i will buy one who gets upgrades on a
regular
> base, but hard for me to get it in my country. I will then complain
> and cry until they start to support me well.
Sure i could buy a
> different car that's older and needs just a bit oil from time to time,
> but hey, this is a free world, i can change anything.
>
Apples and Oranges.
Nope, just a perfect example not software related.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
6:04 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 12/03/10 11:56, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank
Murphy<frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> -snipped--
>
> If I can be indulged.
>
>> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
>> stubborn
>
> It's not the endusers fault,
> they have bad infracture.
Oh, so it's our fault?
It's just life, in all it's forms.
> and use Fedora
> Because that is what they want.
I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
choose, as can they.
They have, Fedora
> (and even worse try to change it)
> They also want to learn,
> maybe eventually be in a position
> to give back to the Fedora Community,
> and floss in general.
They can give back with any other distro as well,
True.
that fits their needs better.
So you say.
> instead of
>> using what fits their needs.
>
> Maybe Fedora is what fits their needs?
Obviously not.
You can't make that call for them.
That is not, you are not intitled to voice your concerns,
>> Next time i buy a car, i will buy one who gets upgrades on a regular
>> base, but hard for me to get it in my country. I will then complain
>> and cry until they start to support me well.
> Sure i could buy a
>> different car that's older and needs just a bit oil from time to time,
>> but hey, this is a free world, i can change anything.
>>
>
> Apples and Oranges.
Nope, just a perfect example not software related.
Except when you need to drive the Nullabor.
You wish you had the upgradeable car.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora 12, 13, Rawhide: x86_64
6:09 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 12/03/10 12:04, Frank Murphy wrote:
--snipped--
-------snipped-----
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora 12, 13, Rawhide: x86_64
That is not, you are not intitled to voice your concerns,
s /That is not to say, you are not intitled to voice your concerns,
6:12 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/03/10 11:56, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy<frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> -snipped--
>>
>> If I can be indulged.
>>
>>> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
>>> stubborn
>>
>> It's not the endusers fault,
>> they have bad infracture.
>
> Oh, so it's our fault?
It's just life, in all it's forms.
Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
can't choose everything.
>
>> and use Fedora
>> Because that is what they want.
>
> I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
> choose, as can they.
They have, Fedora
Perfectly, so why do they complain then?
>> (and even worse try to change it)
>> They also want to learn,
>> maybe eventually be in a position
>> to give back to the Fedora Community,
>> and floss in general.
>
> They can give back with any other distro as well,
True.
that fits their needs better.
So you say.
Well, all that complaining in this meag-threads makes it obvious that
Fedora doesn't fit their needs, don't you think ;)
>> instead of
>>> using what fits their needs.
>>
>> Maybe Fedora is what fits their needs?
>
> Obviously not.
You can't make that call for them.
See above.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
6:26 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
--sniped--
>>
>> Oh, so it's our fault?
>
> It's just life, in all it's forms.
Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
can't choose everything.
Bringing it back to dialup.
Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
Fedora 1, CentOS 0
>>
>>> and use Fedora
>>> Because that is what they want.
>>
>> I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
>> choose, as can they.
>
> They have, Fedora
Perfectly, so why do they complain then?
They are doing the best with what they have.
"http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f12/en-US/html-single/#sect-Release_Notes-Welcome_to_Fedora"
Should we ask the community, to change our community focus:
"Fedora is a community of people, who come from well developed
lifestyles. Have access to high-speed internet, do not download,
or feel you belong unless this is satisfied.
>>> (and even worse try to change it)
>>> They also want to learn,
>>> maybe eventually be in a position
>>> to give back to the Fedora Community,
>>> and floss in general.
>>
>> They can give back with any other distro as well,
>
> True.
>
> that fits their needs better.
>
> So you say.
Well, all that complaining in this meag-threads makes it obvious that
Fedora doesn't fit their needs, don't you think ;)
What doesn't fit their need is the infracstruture,
not the distro.
>>> instead of
>>>> using what fits their needs.
>>>
>>> Maybe Fedora is what fits their needs?
>>
>> Obviously not.
>
> You can't make that call for them.
See above.
I did.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora 12, 13, Rawhide: x86_64
6:42 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
--sniped--
>>>
>>> Oh, so it's our fault?
>>
>> It's just life, in all it's forms.
>
> Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
> can't choose everything.
Bringing it back to dialup.
Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
Fedora 1, CentOS 0
CentOS was just an example, i'm can't tell if CentOS has a
netinstall.iso. If not, would be a improvement.
Other distros have for sure. Such distros with very low updates.
>>>> and use Fedora
>>>> Because that is what they want.
>>>
>>> I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
>>> choose, as can they.
>>
>> They have, Fedora
>
> Perfectly, so why do they complain then?
They are doing the best with what they have.
"http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f12/en-US/html-single/#sect-Release_Notes-Welcome_to_Fedora"
Should we ask the community, to change our community focus:
"Fedora is a community of people, who come from well developed
lifestyles. Have access to high-speed internet, do not download,
or feel you belong unless this is satisfied.
I like that you said *ask*. What happens right now with our community?
Do they feel like they are asked? No. People who think they know what
our users want, deciding right now that Fedora will change into. Yes,
i wrote *think they know*. They don't know, they just guess. It seems
they guess because *they* want it like that. Even a poll (yes i have
read all the posts if the poll is good or bad) has shown, that our
users want's something different that those decider guess.
>>>> (and even worse try to change it)
>>>> They also want to learn,
>>>> maybe eventually be in a position
>>>> to give back to the Fedora Community,
>>>> and floss in general.
>>>
>>> They can give back with any other distro as well,
>>
>> True.
>>
>> that fits their needs better.
>>
>> So you say.
>
> Well, all that complaining in this meag-threads makes it obvious that
> Fedora doesn't fit their needs, don't you think ;)
What doesn't fit their need is the infracstruture,
not the distro.
I guess you mean their infrastructure. Well, since they can't change
their infra, they want us to change into something that fits their
infra instead of choose something that fits already into their infra.
Look, it's not like i can't understand your point. Though we're
spinning around in circles and there's not one argument *why*, should
we change. There are lots of distros out there, exactly fulfilling
those needs. Why "kill" something beautiful like Fedora just to be
another such distro. Nobody really needs that.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
8:59 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Frank Murphy wrote:
Should we ask the community, to change our community focus:
"Fedora is a community of people, who come from well developed
lifestyles. Have access to high-speed internet, do not download,
or feel you belong unless this is satisfied.
I've been advocating for adding "broadband Internet connection" to
Fedora's
system requirements all the time. It is pretty much a requirement in
practice.
Kevin Kofler
1:27 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:26 +0000, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
--sniped--
>>>
>>> Oh, so it's our fault?
>>
>> It's just life, in all it's forms.
>
> Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
> can't choose everything.
Bringing it back to dialup.
Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
Fedora 1, CentOS 0
In my experience, many users with restricted bandwidth actually prefer a
*larger* install image, as then they at least have a databank of
software available without an internet connection. They will often
acquire a DVD image from someone with a faster connection, or just by
buying a DVD through the post or whatever, and then they can install
most everything they need without using the internet connection. This is
not possible with the restricted range of software available on the live
image.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:55 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 12/03/10 19:27, Adam Williamson wrote:
--snipped--
>
> Bringing it back to dialup.
> Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
> CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
> Fedora 1, CentOS 0
In my experience, many users with restricted bandwidth actually prefer a
*larger* install image, as then they at least have a databank of
software available without an internet connection.
I bow to your experience.
They will often
acquire a DVD image from someone with a faster connection, or just
by
buying a DVD through the post or whatever, and then they can install
most everything they need without using the internet connection. This is
not possible with the restricted range of software available on the live
image.
Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release notes.
(said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
That to keep Fedora fully updated
"A highspeed internet connection is recommended"
No, I'm not trying to help create a two-tier community.
Just maybe thinking on something.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora 12, 13, Rawhide: x86_64
2:49 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:55 +0000, Frank Murphy wrote:
Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release
notes.
(said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
That to keep Fedora fully updated
"A highspeed internet connection is recommended"
No, I'm not trying to help create a two-tier community.
Just maybe thinking on something.
I don't think it'd make sense to do that until the present issue is
settled, and we have some hard numbers on the overall quantity of
updates shipped for Fedora 13 onwards. But at present, heck, it probably
wouldn't be wrong. The amount of updates shipped for F12 would be very
painful to download over a dial-up line, I think.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:58 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/03/10 19:27, Adam Williamson wrote:
--snipped--
>>
>> Bringing it back to dialup.
>> Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
>> CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
>> Fedora 1, CentOS 0
>
> In my experience, many users with restricted bandwidth actually prefer a
> *larger* install image, as then they at least have a databank of
> software available without an internet connection.
I bow to your experience.
They will often
> acquire a DVD image from someone with a faster connection, or just by
> buying a DVD through the post or whatever, and then they can install
> most everything they need without using the internet connection. This is
> not possible with the restricted range of software available on the live
> image.
Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release notes.
(said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
That to keep Fedora fully updated
"A highspeed internet connection is recommended"
Yes, why not. Sounds absolutely fair play to me.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
1:05 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Frank Murphy wrote:
Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release
notes.
(said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
That to keep Fedora fully updated
"A highspeed internet connection is recommended"
I've been recommending that all this time, I've been ignored. (In fact I
think it is "required", not just "recommended".)
Kevin Kofler
6:17 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part.
It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
mirrors etc) of that is users with low bandwidth systems being able to
take advantage of Fedora more. While you can always brush off any
suggestion with a position of "take it or leave it", it is importance to
recognize that there is room for improvement. If we didn't care about
people with low bandwidth systems, we wouldn't be having yum-presto and
LZMA compressed RPMS So claiming that users with such systems should
just go away doesn't fit into the development efforts already made to
accommodate such users.
Rahul
6:27 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part.
>
It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
mirrors etc) of that is users with low bandwidth systems being able to
take advantage of Fedora more. While you can always brush off any
suggestion with a position of "take it or leave it", it is importance to
recognize that there is room for improvement. If we didn't care about
people with low bandwidth systems, we wouldn't be having yum-presto and
LZMA compressed RPMS So claiming that users with such systems should
just go away doesn't fit into the development efforts already made to
accommodate such users.
I agree there's room for improvement.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
9:03 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to
debate in
parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
mirrors etc) of that is users with low bandwidth systems being able to
take advantage of Fedora more. While you can always brush off any
suggestion with a position of "take it or leave it", it is importance to
recognize that there is room for improvement. If we didn't care about
people with low bandwidth systems, we wouldn't be having yum-presto and
LZMA compressed RPMS So claiming that users with such systems should
just go away doesn't fit into the development efforts already made to
accommodate such users.
The point of those technologies is to reduce bandwidth consumption WITHOUT
destroying what Fedora is about. They're technical solutions to technical
problems. They have no drawbacks. (Well, yum-presto can actually make
updates take longer on slow CPUs, but it can be disabled, so this is not an
issue.) The changes you and some others are advocating, on the other hand,
turn Fedora into something entirely different, and throw away some of our
unique advantages.
Kevin Kofler
3:31 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> similar distro isn't for them.
I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
working out a method that satisfies more users.
Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
People¹ use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
identity, then people¹ won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.
(¹not everyone, true, but we've shown that there /are/ such people)
Personally, I know I would rather use Ubuntu (larger user base) than
Fedora, if it weren't for Fedora's leading edge policy.
I am curious why the folks on the 'stable' side think that throwing out
one of Fedora's distinguishing qualities to make us look more like
Ubuntu will give us more users. Usually you don't win people over by
imitating the competition, but by offering something unique.
Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
and the ones you are going to attract are more likely to be
uncontributing leaches.
Thomas Janssen wrote:
I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a
single
argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
+10 to that!
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
3:35 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
and the ones you are going to attract are more likely to be
uncontributing leaches.
So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.
Rahul
3:54 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
> lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
> you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
> and the ones you are going to attract are more likely to be
> uncontributing leaches.
>
So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.
Yes.
Interesting how you define users as people that give a warm fuzzy
feeling to packagers. Great! Looks like they just contributed something
:-). Bug reports, testing, even sending kudos are forms of contribution.
I'm thinking of people that silently consume without giving anything
back whatsoever, or worse, consume and complain without giving back
anything positive.
I had gotten the impression that Fedora wanted people that would be
actively involved, that would contribute testing, documentation, ideally
even code... more than just statistics and a warm fuzzy feeling. But I
guess I am wrong.
(Heh, I just noticed today's .sig... oddly appropriate.)
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
3:15 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/13/2010 03:24 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
> users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.
>
Yes.
Interesting how you define users as people that give a warm fuzzy
feeling to packagers. Great!
No, I don't. I have to ask you to stop trying to put words into my
mouth only to diss them. I want to Fedora to be used outside of a core
contributor group. If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
contributors only, we will lose contributors ironically because being I
want to use Fedora as well for my work. Besides that, I would like to
be able to share Fedora with friends and family. If I can't reliably do
that, then my motivation to contribute significantly decreases if not
goes away completely. I know that I am not alone in that position.
I also disagree strongly with any notion that users are leeches.
Rahul
12:40 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
contributors only,
It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
*contributors* to be focus is all.
-- Rex
12:50 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/14/2010 11:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
> contributors only,
>
It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
*contributors* to be focus is all.
How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
what we want to encourage?
You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
inherently self defeating at large. If the only way to use our
contributions in a good form is to use another distribution, then
contributors will go to *that* distribution instead. How it would have
to work instead, is for us to create a system that has a large number of
users, where some of them (admittedly a very small percentage) will take
the next step to become contributors. By losing users, you lose the
opportunity for that to even happen or atleast make it significantly
less likely.
Rahul
1:07 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is
that
what we want to encourage?
Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
only benefitting from our (the contributors') work as a side effect.
Kevin Kofler
1:32 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 19:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> what we want to encourage?
Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
only benefitting from our (the contributors') work as a side effect.
Kevin Kofler
hi,
I wouldn't refer to it as a "side effect". Contributors sure do think of
benefits to themselves and "yes", they certainly do make fedora grow.
BUT
Users are an important part of the community and I'm certainly
interested in serving them to increase the Fedora user base.
I wouldn't encourage the "contributors work for themselves, users are
not important and should be happy with what they get" attitude here.
--
regards,
Ankur
- FAS : ankursinha
- franciscod @ Freenode
1:49 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy
is
inherently self defeating at large.
OK, fair enough, you made that case sure. It's just that I don't agree with
that generalization much (or generalizations in general, heh).
I'm hopeful that there's a place to be found where we can largely have our
cake and eat it too.
Some people(1) just happen to to think our (primary) cake should be
contributors while others seem to think our cake should be users. (pardon if
I'm misrepresenting opinions).
Now, I'm about to go off and do something constructive (crazy I know) like
try to formulate some sort of explicit target audience for the fedora-kde
spin. Hopefully, that will help frame future discussion.
-- Rex
2:52 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/15/2010 12:19 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
> inherently self defeating at large.
>
OK, fair enough, you made that case sure. It's just that I don't agree with
that generalization much (or generalizations in general, heh).
Imagine for a moment that you want to encourage a environment that
contributors only care about themselves. What if they maintain a package
where a bug gets reported and they say, "meh, I don't care about that
bug as I don't use that feature. Let me just close it". Would you
agree with that approach? Face it, we will have to strive to be less
selfish than that and care about the end user experience and put that
before our own limited interests. I know you do.
Every contributor is also a user of Fedora. You can take care of KDE
packages but you are user of a entire ecosystem of software around you
(everything from kernel. glibc and upwards) and you would want others to
take care of that well enough for you to be able to develop and build
KDE or simply just use Fedora. Development in Fedora is a means to
enable you and others to do something else and it's not a end onto
itself. We all want to do different things, be it development of
upstream software or reading emails, it is a tool to help us accomplish
all that. If we forget that, we stand the risk of losing perspective
and limit ourselves to a very very small niche.
Rahul
11:13 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is
that
what we want to encourage?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "all of them". It's basic
psychology; people don't do things that have no (perceived) benefit to
them. At most ephemeral, that benefit is "karma". Usually it is more
tangible (money, happiness from helping others, etc.... and in the Free
Software world, often "scratching one's own itch").
By losing users, you lose the
opportunity for that to even happen or atleast make it significantly
less likely.
So you prefer to throw our current contributors under the bus in the
*hope* that by increasing users in general you see an increase in
contributors?
Okay. Points for long-term thinking. Not so much for watering down
Fedora into another Ubuntu.
Fedora currently is progressive and aggressive. Maybe moving to
progressive and conservative will work, but the question I have is how
effectively can you be progressive without also being aggressive? I
think there is a danger that development will either falter to follow
the slowed pace of release, or else have to move to rawhide, which means
more pain for developers and ergo fewer developers.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
11:36 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/15/2010 09:43 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> what we want to encourage?
>
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "all of them". It's basic
psychology; people don't do things that have no (perceived) benefit to
them. At most ephemeral, that benefit is "karma".
Well, people can serve themselves but they need to care about more than
*only* that.
So you prefer to throw our current contributors under the bus in the
*hope* that by increasing users in general you see an increase in
contributors?
Nope. I haven't said anything along those lines.
Okay. Points for long-term thinking. Not so much for watering down
Fedora into another Ubuntu.
Fedora is inherently different because of several major reasons ( free
software focus, upstream contributions etc) so I don't feel any
insecurity about all this.
Fedora currently is progressive and aggressive. Maybe moving to
progressive and conservative will work, but the question I have is how
effectively can you be progressive without also being aggressive
Fedora is currently disjoint and acts differently based on which set of
packages you are talking about ( KDE vs GNOME, Firefox et all).
Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
update streams. With a smaller amount of additional maintenance burden,
we can do this as well.
Rahul
12:07 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development
branches
as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
update streams. With a smaller amount of additional maintenance burden,
we can do this as well.
Your claim is self-contradictory: Additional repos mean
additional
maintenance burden and additional complexity.
Or did I read your request incorrectly and you are proposing to
reintroduce a Core+Extra's split?
12:15 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/15/2010 10:37 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
> as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
> disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
> update streams. With a smaller amount of additional maintenance burden,
> we can do this as well.
>
Your claim is self-contradictory: Additional repos mean additional
maintenance burden and additional complexity.
Err, where is the contradiction? I did clear point out that there is a
additional maintenance burden involved in this but if there is a
necessity for faster updates, it will happen anyway and it already has
elsewhere for various reasons.
Or did I read your request incorrectly and you are proposing to
reintroduce a Core+Extra's split?
You did read it incorrectly. Splitting up the update stream doesn't
involve going back to core+extras at all. KDE has a additional repo
already in kde-redhat.sf.net where they have first builds before they
get into the official updates repo.. Accommodating such workflows
within the Fedora infrastructure would allow people who want to move a
newer KDE in older versions, the choice to do so more easily.
Rahul
2:02 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am 15.03.2010 18:15, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
You did read it incorrectly. Splitting up the update stream doesn't
involve going back to core+extras at all. KDE has a additional repo
already in kde-redhat.sf.net where they have first builds before they
get into the official updates repo..
Sorry, from my point of view this is not a
solution for KDE.
If you may take an update on KDE, this may indicate an update of Qt
which cause additionally depended updates on other packages like
stellarium or luma. So the main issue is to coordinate the updates of
all of this packages to avoid failing applications by the end-user.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iJwEAQECAAYFAkuehDAACgkQZLAIBz9lVu+/7AQAiKU/GNV9Tx610KNVWamUtuXs
HtjKLTIXCY7yJ7ysOcA5lUkb2zHHqQ7MkExGh36laVi0I1fh96KUGG4khVOoaUC6
p18xWCDX3TWYFSGq9x3OmgvurF/vYXMkTuRR4VQcbbcbUaCxNE/m7/WpxYl5DdbO
aOL6oWywKfU5zXXSf1U=
=bcOt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3:43 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 15:31:26 -0600,
Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
People¹ use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
identity, then people¹ won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.
(¹not everyone, true, but we've shown that there /are/ such people)
But are there more that use it because it is free or more ammeniable to
new contributors or perhaps other reasons?
I am curious why the folks on the 'stable' side think that
throwing out
one of Fedora's distinguishing qualities to make us look more like
Ubuntu will give us more users. Usually you don't win people over by
imitating the competition, but by offering something unique.
It's not just more users, it might be more contributors, particularly
contributors that aren't going to be packagers. (I am in the process of
trying to encourage some people with experience in project management to
take a look at Fedora. If the Fedora Desktop fails for any of them that
does take a look, it's going to be a lost opportunity for Fedora to pick
up some help in an area we are lacking in help.)
Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I
think you will
lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
and the ones you are going to attract are more likely to be
uncontributing leaches.
There are plenty of ways to be adventerous in Fedora. I think the project can
more onus on the tinkerer types and provide a more usable Desktop for
everyone. If you want to tinker, there is rawhide, the branched prerelease
(a lot of the time), grabbing selective packages from either, rebuilding
SRPMS locally and probably other ways. What's better about this, is you can
can selectively tinker with what you are interested in, rather than having
to tinker with lots of things you might not be and at inopportune times.
4:05 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 15:31:26 -0600,
Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
I'd ask you not to do that, but you've been quite clear you've no
intention of listening.
> Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use
Ubuntu.
> People¹ use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
> identity, then people¹ won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.
>
> (¹not everyone, true, but we've shown that there /are/ such people)
But are there more that use it because it is free or more ammeniable to
new contributors or perhaps other reasons?
I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
you define "more ammeniable to new contributors", so that's harder to
address. Still, I think it's clear that at least some people use Fedora
*because* it is leading (yes, almost bleeding) edge.
And this is going to kill that. (Or will if it gets enforced.)
Anyone know of a distro that doesn't lag like Ubuntu/NewFedora? Is
Mandrake kept up to date, or do they also make you wait months for new
versions? Because I am *seriously* considering switching right now...
There are plenty of ways to be adventerous in Fedora. I think the
project can
more onus on the tinkerer types and provide a more usable Desktop for
everyone. If you want to tinker, there is rawhide
Please. "Rawhide is => that way" is getting really, really old.
the branched prerelease
(a lot of the time), grabbing selective packages from either,
You're suggesting cherry-picking from rawhide into release? Really?
/me is ++incredulous
rebuilding
SRPMS locally and probably other ways.
Thanks, but I /have/ heard of Gentoo.
What's better about this, is you can
can selectively tinker with what you are interested in, rather than having
to tinker with lots of things you might not be and at inopportune times.
I can also choose not to install every update the moment it is released.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
5:18 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
you define "more ammeniable to new contributors", so that's harder to
address. Still, I think it's clear that at least some people use Fedora
*because* it is leading (yes, almost bleeding) edge.
And this is going to kill that. (Or will if it gets enforced.)
Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
picking up all the kinds of things Fedora is the first to integrate.
Stop trying to drag rawhide into our releases.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
5:50 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jesse Keating wrote:
Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up
for
its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
picking up all the kinds of things Fedora is the first to integrate.
That is still too slow for many of our users.
Kevin Kofler
5:55 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
> its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
> release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
> picking up all the kinds of things Fedora is the first to integrate.
That is still too slow for many of our users.
Kevin Kofler
Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
to those users, can go start their own project.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
6:01 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:55 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
> > its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
> > release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
> > picking up all the kinds of things Fedora is the first to integrate.
>
> That is still too slow for many of our users.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
to those users, can go start their own project.
+1
6:09 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jesse Keating wrote:
Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to
cater
to those users, can go start their own project.
Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
plausible given the results of Adam Williamson's poll, at least you can't
prove that this is not the case. And Fedora is currently quite close to what
those users want. Your attitude may lead to us losing over two thirds of our
users! And once that's done, it may be too late to win them back.
Kevin Kofler
6:16 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> to those users, can go start their own project.
Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
Prove it. And prove your point that users are desperate for intrusive
rolling updates and won't just use Rawhide instead if they want to get
the very latest and greatest unbaked stuff.
And while you're at it, why not tell us why people who want to update
constantly aren't just running Gentoo or some other compile from source
distribution?
Six months is a blink of an eye compared with many things in life. Many
Fedora users don't even update to every release - some only once a year
or perhaps even less. Rawhide is rolling forward at ever increasing
rates, and it's generally pretty good, but not everyone wants to deal
with the occasional issues that come from not having a tested *release*
(as Simo noted). What's the point in a tested, QA'd release if you can
unilaterally decide to push an update that invalidates all the testing?
Jon.
7:56 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jon Masters wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>> to those users, can go start their own project.
>
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
Prove it.
Prove that it *isn't* true.
I'm sick and tired of everyone screaming their own opinions as if
they're established fact. The only facts I've seen are:
1. Some users like things as they are
2. Some don't (obviously, given the flaming that's been going on)
3. The ONLY numbers I've seen are that 70% like things as they are
No it's not scientifically sound, but it's no less conclusive than I've
seen from the folks insisting that most of our audience is upset with
"the rapid degeneration of Fedora into an unstable disaster".
And prove your point that users are desperate for intrusive
rolling updates and won't just use Rawhide instead if they want to get
the very latest and greatest unbaked stuff.
First off: I'm not asking for unbaked stuff. Second, "unbaked stuff" Is
exactly why I have no intention of using rawhide. As for proving my
point, well I've been trying to get through to you people² for the last
several days. It seems that all the users in the world can stand in
front of you and tell you that you are wrong, and you will just stick
your fingers in your ears and yell la-la-la at them.
(²"you people" == the people that want to change Fedora from what I know
and love)
Fourth I submit that your question is flawed and that we don't
currently, *generally* have "intrusive rolling updates". I have yet to
be hit by an update I consider "intrusive". (Even the /few/ bugs I can
think of that came from updates I wouldn't classify as "intrusive").
I'll submit that the recent bind and kdepim updates - neither of which
affected me as I don't use either - may qualify. I'll even go so far as
to suggest that pushing kdepim 4.4 (note: kde*pim* 4.4, not KDE 4.4 in
general) may have been a mistake. But if people gave up every time a
setback occurred, there would be no progress.
And while you're at it, why not tell us why people who want to
update
constantly aren't just running Gentoo or some other compile from source
distribution?
Because having to compile all your own stuff constantly is a colossal pain?
On some of my machines, I do actually roll my own KDE from trunk. (I
fancy myself a KDE developer... in fairness I *have* made my mark, but
I've not had the time recently I wish I did.) It's a major pain,
especially since *I* basically have to be maintainer for all those
packages, and deal with build failures as well as functionality changes.
With Fedora, I get no build issues and packages that have been tested,
to at least some degree, before I get them. That's a HUGE difference,
both in time and effort (and to some degree, in hardware wear). And I
appreciate both that, and timely updates on those systems where I
*don't* build KDE.
Like, for example, my ASUS. Go out, buy yourself a 4 GB SSD that is slow
as heck and barely holds the binaries you want (let alone sources or
/build objects/), match it to a 1.6 GHz CPU and 1 GiB of RAM with *no
swap*, allocate maximum 8 hours per week (only 1 hour of which you are
allowed to do anything active; the other 7 must be doing something
unattended) to maintaining it, and let me know how a source-based distro
works out for you.
Six months is a blink of an eye compared with many things in life.
Many
Fedora users don't even update to every release - some only once a year
or perhaps even less.
...even more reason to appreciate feature updates in existing releases!
(Six months can be a *very* long time if you're waiting on a feature
that will save you a bunch of time.)
Rawhide [...] is generally pretty good, but not everyone wants to
deal
with the occasional issues that come from not having a tested *release*
(as Simo noted).
...which is exactly why I don't use rawhide. I don't need a system that
may randomly stop working after I run updates because of some major
change, or that may simply fail to boot.
Yes, this could be addressed by having some sort of "rawerhide" and
deferring truly invasive changes (like major version upgrades of X,
replacing init with upstart, etc.) until they are well tested, but then
we just change "rawhide" into what we have now, and "releases"
become...
well, stagnant. I dropped RHEL, and won't touch Ubuntu, because I need
something that isn't six months out of date. If Fedora goes that route,
what will I use?
What's the point in a tested, QA'd release if you can
unilaterally decide to push an update that invalidates all the testing?
*Any* update, even a security fix can do that. If you want that level of
"stability", install from the DVD and don't update.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
10:43 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Matthew Woehlke
<mw_triad(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>>> to those users, can go start their own project.
>>
>> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
>
> Prove it.
Prove that it *isn't* true.
Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
and not easily proven that it wasn't. Relying on the forum for data is
bad science and makes this whole argument more and more farcical. I am
saying this as a mostly neutral body.. I really don't care one way or
another beyond my google account is running out of diskspace because
of it.
First off: I'm not asking for unbaked stuff. Second,
"unbaked stuff" Is
exactly why I have no intention of using rawhide. As for proving my
point, well I've been trying to get through to you people² for the last
Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
(a couple of days if its a small one). To you its something else. To
Jon it is probably something else. Without defining what you mean and
findout what they mean.. there is no conversation.
Most of these threads are hogwash. People are spending more time
reading into each others motives without asking for clarification than
actually doing the hard work of saying "I don't know what you mean."
All this fucking flag waving and "This is my distribution and you are
killing it." from BOTH sides is below childish.
I have better behaved cub-scouts after feeding them with sugar cookies
and giving them woopie cushions. [And I don't want to hear about who
started it.. it does not matter at this point.]
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
11:44 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
(a couple of days if its a small one).
If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0 actually had
much MORE than a month of testing before being pushed. Even if you count
only the stable release, it got more than 2 weeks of total testing before
the stable push. But the changes between the RCs and the final were fairly
small.
So please don't overgeneralize claiming all the feature updates which are
getting pushed are "unbaked".
Kevin Kofler
9:50 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
> (a couple of days if its a small one).
If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0 actually had
much MORE than a month of testing before being pushed. Even if you count
only the stable release, it got more than 2 weeks of total testing before
the stable push. But the changes between the RCs and the final were fairly
small.
So please don't overgeneralize claiming all the feature updates which are
getting pushed are "unbaked".
Kevin, I am only going to respond once because it is clear you don't
really read, you just shoot from your hip and you have not a single
iota of compromise.
You just inferred a whole lot into my post. I never said anything
about KDE in this post. I don't use it enough to be able to talk about
it. I gave a definition of what I thought unbaked was... nothing more,
nothing less.
I am done trying to have a conversation here... *plunk*
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
1:10 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Kevin, I am only going to respond once because it is clear you
don't
really read, you just shoot from your hip and you have not a single
iota of compromise.
Personal attacks…
You just inferred a whole lot into my post. I never said anything
about KDE in this post. I don't use it enough to be able to talk about
it. I gave a definition of what I thought unbaked was... nothing more,
nothing less.
You claimed feature updates are "unbaked" as a general rule. I just showed
an example which was definitely NOT "unbaked".
I am done trying to have a conversation here... *plunk*
If you aren't going to read me, that's your choice…
Kevin Kofler
1:49 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
> (a couple of days if its a small one).
If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0 actually had
much MORE than a month of testing before being pushed. Even if you count
only the stable release, it got more than 2 weeks of total testing before
the stable push. But the changes between the RCs and the final were fairly
small.
So please don't overgeneralize claiming all the feature updates which are
getting pushed are "unbaked".
Kevin, please calm down. You aren't helping yourself - and by extension,
your constituents (/me waves) - by treating everything said by someone
not obviously "on your side" as a personal attack.
I don't see anywhere that Stephen was calling current updates "unbaked".
Stephen is trying to throw some water on the fire /without/ taking
sides. I can't, unfortunately, say he is succeeding; not because of his
own efforts - which I find to be of very high quality - but... well,
because certain parts of the fire just seem to burn hotter no matter what.
So, please, take a step back, and try seeing if maybe, just maybe, your
views aren't as incompatible as you think.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
2:45 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
and not easily proven that it wasn't. Relying on the forum for data is
bad science and makes this whole argument more and more farcical. I am
Again, when I'm trying to be a scientist, I'll be sure and let you know.
=) The poll wasn't intended to be a statistically valid indication of
the entire Fedora user base. For the record, I don't think it's
sufficiently strong to support the claims Kevin is trying to make it
support.
I don't think it was stuffed, though, for a couple of reasons. One, it
wasn't discussed anywhere outside the forums until over 100 votes were
in (and the percentages then were about the same as they are now). Two,
when a poll's being stuffed, you usually see a large amount of votes
arrive in a lump; I've been watching the vote counts for the poll, and
that hasn't happened, they've mostly dribbled in a few at a time.
BTW, it would be very difficult to take up your suggestion, as we don't
*have* a big list of All Fedora Users for the external polling agency to
generate a random list from. All the usable lists of Fedora-related
people we have probably suffer from some kind of selection bias. The
best would be the Smolt data, but of course that's not identifiable in
any way you could use to contact people.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
10:16 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
> contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
> users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
> and not easily proven that it wasn't. Relying on the forum for data is
> bad science and makes this whole argument more and more farcical. I am
Again, when I'm trying to be a scientist, I'll be sure and let you know.
=) The poll wasn't intended to be a statistically valid indication of
the entire Fedora user base. For the record, I don't think it's
sufficiently strong to support the claims Kevin is trying to make it
support.
My sincere apologies Adam, I was not trying to make you into the
villian of this, and probably should have worded things differently.
The poll was done in a sincere effort to get information. And some
sort of poll is needed to start seeing what questions need to be
asked. However an initial poll like this only has a confidence level
of around 50% and no ability to do confidence levels (+/-X amount you
see on various polls in the news)
The results from it have been parlayed as facts; when in the end, they
are just a viewpoint of a select view of people (those who register on
the forum, use the forum regularly,etc ), and because of the nature of
the forum it is hard to determine how much validity there is in the
testing. Even if it was not stuffed, the uncertainty of the tool makes
it so that if say the slower updates had been 70% of the population,
the other side would claim it wasn't a valid test (and vice versa).
I don't think it was stuffed, though, for a couple of reasons.
One, it
wasn't discussed anywhere outside the forums until over 100 votes were
in (and the percentages then were about the same as they are now). Two,
when a poll's being stuffed, you usually see a large amount of votes
arrive in a lump; I've been watching the vote counts for the poll, and
that hasn't happened, they've mostly dribbled in a few at a time.
BTW, it would be very difficult to take up your suggestion, as we don't
*have* a big list of All Fedora Users for the external polling agency to
No we would have to determine it from FAS... probably using the group
CLA and been a member for over X time. You would then poll through
them sending a directed email to a random set and point them to a
closed poll. After the poll had been validated you would then announce
the results (or announce that it had failed validty tests).
While the FAS+CLA is a self selected group, it is representative of
the developers of the group which would fit into the population that
both groups seem to be thinking they talk for :).
generate a random list from. All the usable lists of Fedora-related
people we have probably suffer from some kind of selection bias. The
best would be the Smolt data, but of course that's not identifiable in
any way you could use to contact people.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
8:27 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 19:56 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
> And prove your point that users are desperate for intrusive
> rolling updates and won't just use Rawhide instead if they want to get
> the very latest and greatest unbaked stuff.
First off: I'm not asking for unbaked stuff.
If you can undermine months of testing by shoving things that have had
minimal soak time into a stable release, then you are asking for unbaked
stuff. It's really just that I believe no one person is capable of
replacing the collective efforts of weeks or months of testing.
Fourth I submit that your question is flawed and that we don't
currently, *generally* have "intrusive rolling updates". I have yet to
be hit by an update I consider "intrusive". (Even the /few/ bugs I can
think of that came from updates I wouldn't classify as "intrusive").
An update is intrusive if it changes expected and documented behavior
users are relying on in that release. This can be anything from plugging
your laptop into a projector and finding you can no longer display video
onto a screen, to having menu items move around without warning. I have
this crazy notion that what my laptop does today, it should do tomorrow,
exactly as it did today, unless I choose to upgrade the entire release.
How can you possibly know, when you ship some "innocuous" giant update,
that there isn't some regression introduced in there somewhere that
really annoys existing users of the software? Answer: you can't. Even
very large QA teams can miss things, and Fedora doesn't have anything
like the kind of resources to offer that kind of testing. You can't test
every situation that the software is being used under, can't know that
laptop user X now has no ability to do whatever they did yesterday. It
works for *you*, and you are not intentionally malicious, but that is of
little comfort when updates go breaking things that were working fine.
So, rather than say "don't change anything", for the love of all things
good, please just keep the intrusive massive churn to rawhide. Let users
have the new wonderful unbaked features in 6 months when they've been
tested by experienced developers running rawhide systems, and when the
user has set aside time specifically to upgrade to the latest software.
> And while you're at it, why not tell us why people who want
to update
> constantly aren't just running Gentoo or some other compile from source
> distribution?
Because having to compile all your own stuff constantly is a colossal pain?
Dealing with the number of Fedora updates getting shoved out to
unsuspecting users is a bigger pain. I don't even bother to update my
system daily now because I know I may need to schedule some time to fix
something when I do upgrade. It feels worse than rawhide because it's
expected to be "stable". This is not what any user wants to have. I
don't need to conduct extensive surveys to understand that no user is
desperate to have the number of updates that are going out these days.
Jon.
10:54 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:27:00 -0500
Jon Masters <jonathan(a)jonmasters.org> wrote:
Dealing with the number of Fedora updates getting shoved out to
unsuspecting users is a bigger pain. I don't even bother to update my
system daily now because I know I may need to schedule some time to
fix something when I do upgrade. It feels worse than rawhide because
it's expected to be "stable". This is not what any user wants to
have. I don't need to conduct extensive surveys to understand that no
user is desperate to have the number of updates that are going out
these days.
Same here, and it is a pity, up to F-10 the number of updates was just
fine, recently it has exploded to unsustainable levels for a *stable*
release.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
1:28 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Simo Sorce wrote:
Same here, and it is a pity, up to F-10 the number of updates was
just
fine, recently it has exploded to unsustainable levels for a *stable*
release.
Huh? I didn't collect any stats on that, but I haven't noticed any
difference in that area between F-10 (or F-9) and now.
Kevin Kofler
1:29 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jon Masters wrote:
I don't need to conduct extensive surveys to understand that no
user is
desperate to have the number of updates that are going out these days.
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong word!
Kevin Kofler
6:54 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please
don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong word!
And yes, these are users who have subscribed to updates-testing. My wife
bitterly complains about the amount of updates she is getting through
F12/updates already, so I will have to switch her to something more
reasonable for normal users (probably CentOS 6, when it will become
available).
Matěj
--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
-- Andrew Lang
7:05 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/15/2010 12:54 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
> generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong
word!
And yes, these are users who have subscribed to updates-testing. My wife
bitterly complains about the amount of updates she is getting through
F12/updates already,
And she doesn't complain about the unfixed bugs she is
suffering from?
This is what I am actually complaining about and what hinders me to
switch my wife's personal machine to Fedora.
so I will have to switch her to something more
reasonable for normal users
If Fedora KDE updates are a problem to here: Simply don't install it and
these won't be an issue to her.
(probably CentOS 6, when it will become
available).
LOL, ... I am expecting Fedora to experience a significant reductions of
contributors, when CentOS6 will become available, because Fedora
contributors will switch away from using Fedora.
Cause: The current buggyness of Fedora.
Ralf
9:20 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Matěj Cepl <mcepl(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
> generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong
word!
And yes, these are users who have subscribed to updates-testing. My wife
bitterly complains about the amount of updates she is getting through
F12/updates already, so I will have to switch her to something more
reasonable for normal users (probably CentOS 6, when it will become
available).
Would it be ok for your wife to run Fedora N-1 with only security- and
small bugfix-updates?
That would mean, Fedora N-current has the updates people like me loves
and Fedora N-1 (right now F-11) has only small updates like your wife
loves. Would also mean to be one release behind (nothing bad for
people who want less updates IMO).
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
8:05 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jon Masters wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> > to those users, can go start their own project.
>
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
Prove it. And prove your point that users are desperate for intrusive
rolling updates and won't just use Rawhide instead if they want to get
the very latest and greatest unbaked stuff.
Some evidence pointing towards that has been provided. Even if you do not
trust the evidence, you cannot disprove it either. Is losing 70+% of our
users really a risk you're willing to take?
And while you're at it, why not tell us why people who want to
update
constantly aren't just running Gentoo or some other compile from source
distribution?
Because compiling from source takes a lot of time and CPU cycles for no
practical benefit. And also because source-based distributions are
inherently less reliable (all FTBFS bugs are fatal, people can end up with
vastly different binary builds depending on what they had in their
buildroot, dependency tracking is more complex and thus has more chances to
screw up etc.). And finally, Gentoo isn't even that bleeding edge anymore.
Fedora currently often gets a new KDE into stable before Gentoo does. (Yet,
Gentoo suffers from the same kind of "rolling release" diseases Rawhide
suffers from. Even using only packages marked stable doesn't save you from
disruptive transitions, it just delays them.)
Six months is a blink of an eye compared with many things in life.
Many
Fedora users don't even update to every release - some only once a year
or perhaps even less.
But at least for some, that's only made possible by our application
upgrades!
What's the point in a tested, QA'd release if you can
unilaterally decide
to push an update that invalidates all the testing?
The update also gets testing.
For example, KDE 4.4.0 got through several stages of testing: Rawhide and
kde-redhat unstable (starting with early prereleases, up to the 4.4.0
release, so this brought months of testing; kde-redhat unstable had rebuilds
of the Rawhide packages for F11 and F12), then updates-testing and kde-
redhat testing (kde-redhat testing mirrored the packages from updates-
testing for those who wanted to test only KDE and not all the other stuff in
updates-testing). We only pushed it to stable once we were confident that
there were no remaining blockers.
While I think direct stable pushes make a lot sense in some cases (as
discussed in another thread), I DO NOT suggest that such feature upgrades be
pushed directly to stable!
Kevin Kofler
6:28 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:09:02 PM, Kevin wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> to those users, can go start their own project.
Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's
quite
plausible given the results of Adam Williamson's poll, at least you can't
prove that this is not the case. And Fedora is currently quite close to what
those users want. Your attitude may lead to us losing over two thirds of our
users! And once that's done, it may be too late to win them back.
Kevin Kofler
Kevin,
Why are you acting as if you wrote the question, and that everyone who
took a given position is agreeing without reservation with your
position? Very few politicians would be that bold.
You are really going overboard, acting as if suddenly you have been
vindicated. It ain't that simple. It ain't necessarily so.
You are running the real risk of convincing folks with that they had
voted the other way, simply to avoid the poll being reanimated like
Frankenstein's monster.
Time will tell.
7:46 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> to those users, can go start their own project.
Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
plausible given the results of Adam Williamson's poll, at least you can't
prove that this is not the case.
Right after you _prove_ that this IS the case. How quick would you be
to reject that poll as unscientific and meaningless if it didn't go your
way? I thought it was a bad idea and didn't even take a look. How
widespread was the poll among regular users (not developers)?
Kevin, you are continually talking as if you represent a vast majority
of all Fedora users and the Fedora project itself. You say "we" do
something, when you really mean "the KDE SIG". Please stop trying to
speak for everybody else.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
8:20 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Chris Adams wrote:
Right after you _prove_ that this IS the case. How quick would you
be
to reject that poll as unscientific and meaningless if it didn't go your
way? I thought it was a bad idea and didn't even take a look. How
widespread was the poll among regular users (not developers)?
There is no need to prove it: The mere RISK of losing 70-80% of our users
(which is exactly what is going to happen if the poll happens to be
representative, but those changes get implemented anyway) is a risk not to
be taken lightly.
You say "we" do something, when you really mean "the
KDE SIG".
Please leave the KDE SIG out of it. When I speak for KDE SIG, I say so!
(That said, several people in KDE SIG happen to share my position at least
to some extent. But please let them speak for themselves! KDE SIG is not a
groupthink club.)
Kevin Kofler
8:16 a.m.
New subject: Adventurous updates? (was: Re: Stable Release Updates types proposal)
An increase of private mail is not leaving much time to participate in
these endless threads on devel list, if I still want to get something done
beyond that. So, just this:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:20:02 +0100, Kevin wrote:
There is no need to prove it: The mere RISK of losing 70-80% of our
users
(which is exactly what is going to happen if the poll happens to be
representative, but those changes get implemented anyway) is a risk not to
be taken lightly.
1) Anyone, who wants "adventurous updates" is not representing me.
I'm willing to fix bugs -- and I want to retain the freedom to publish
bug-fix updates, which make the software work -- but I don't like to
jump into cold water after a final release and return it to its
development period by applying "adventurous updates" on purpose.
The final release is the wrong place for that.
2) Fedora doesn't only need more testers of updates to stable releases, it
also needs more testers during its _entire_ development period. I'm not
convinced that everyone follows the "release in Rawhide first, test in
Rawhide first" principle before even considering to upgrade a stable
release. Let those 70-80% of our users do a great job by helping
with getting the next Fedora release in shape. It will work better out
of the box and will need less bug-fix updates. I'm happy about the
remaining 20-30%, who prefer installations that need not be tinkered
with daily.
3) FESCo *and* the FPB ought to discuss their visions and goals _privately_
(they still have non-public communication channels for that), try to find
an agreement with eachother, and when they make their plan public, let
some sort of spokesman make an announcement on behalf of the committee/board.
If their proposals _or_ decisions are unpopular and result in criticism,
I don't want to see the committee/board members fight the critics. The
members (in particular the elected community representatives) are free to
ignore critics, or collect feedback and possibly revise their proposals or,
as a last resort, withdraw unpopular decisions.
When I speak for KDE SIG, I say so!
What about your FESCo membership? How do you separate between your own
personal agenda and being an elected community representative?
11:42 a.m.
New subject: Adventurous updates? (was: Re: Stable Release Updates types proposal)
Michael Schwendt wrote:
1) Anyone, who wants "adventurous updates" is not
representing me.
I'm willing to fix bugs -- and I want to retain the freedom to publish
bug-fix updates, which make the software work -- but I don't like to
jump into cold water after a final release and return it to its
development period by applying "adventurous updates" on purpose.
The final release is the wrong place for that.
The word "adventurous" was maybe a bad choice (but still, many people voted
for it anyway in the poll, probably because they realized that it's just a
word and the description clearly explained what it was about anyway). I
wouldn't have used that word myself. What we "adventurous updates" folks
really want is non-disruptive non-conservative updates. No need to be
conservative as long as you don't break anything.
2) Fedora doesn't only need more testers of updates to stable
releases, it
also needs more testers during its _entire_ development period. I'm not
convinced that everyone follows the "release in Rawhide first, test in
Rawhide first" principle before even considering to upgrade a stable
release. Let those 70-80% of our users do a great job by helping
with getting the next Fedora release in shape. It will work better out
of the box and will need less bug-fix updates. I'm happy about the
remaining 20-30%, who prefer installations that need not be tinkered
with daily.
Rawhide is not a solution, as has been explained several times already.
And many feature updates were, in fact, tested in Rawhide first!
3) FESCo *and* the FPB ought to discuss their visions and goals
_privately_ (they still have non-public communication channels for that),
try to find an agreement with eachother, and when they make their plan
public, let some sort of spokesman make an announcement on behalf of the
committee/board. If their proposals _or_ decisions are unpopular and
result in criticism, I don't want to see the committee/board members fight
the critics. The members (in particular the elected community
representatives) are free to ignore critics, or collect feedback and
possibly revise their proposals or, as a last resort, withdraw unpopular
decisions.
I couldn't disagree more. I believe strongly in transparency and
accountability. I don't think we should discuss things behind closed doors
and present you with "take it or leave it" or even "take it or
leave".
> When I speak for KDE SIG, I say so!
What about your FESCo membership? How do you separate between your own
personal agenda and being an elected community representative?
When I speak for FESCo, I say so! When I don't say otherwise, I only speak
for myself! I'm not a spokesman!
And FYI, I'm the only one who took your defense during and after the FESCo
meeting when those remarks were made about you.
Kevin Kofler
3:13 p.m.
New subject: Adventurous updates? (was: Re: Stable Release Updates types proposal)
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:42:51 +0100, Kevin wrote:
What we "adventurous updates" folks
really want is non-disruptive non-conservative updates. No need to be
conservative as long as you don't break anything.
It's not that updates "don't break anything". The less conservative,
the
higher the risk. The larger and the more numerous the changes in updates,
the more likely they break something.
Unless you have the testing resources to ensure a certain level of quality
for the updates *and* all dependencies, which is doubtful. Or else more
bugs would be found in development *and* in updates-testing than in
stable updates, when *many* more users start using the updated software.
Bugs slip through, even embarrassing ones. And apparently, one of the
reasons for these discussions is not only that there is no policy for
updates yet. But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped
through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take the
risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that part of
Fedora. How exactly remains to be seen.
Rawhide is not a solution, as has been explained several times
already.
And many feature updates were, in fact, tested in Rawhide first!
And still you can find enough users who blame Fedora because of its
non-working releases -- and because of the many updates, which don't fix
the bugs they consider the worst.
Most of those users have not participated in the development period and
don't enable updates-testing either, because they fear instabilities when
doing so. They expect others to do that and to release a finished product
that works.
I dunno whether those 70-80% power-users are, who would stop using Fedora
if stable updates tried to bring stability only. Rather I think we're
missing the 70-80% power-users, who *would* use Fedora if it worked better
out-of-the-box and improved over time with updates adding fixes instead of
new risks.
*That*'s why I would like to see me and other packagers retain the freedom
to publish updates as needed, but not so they can produce a
rolling-release in disguise that syncs with development too often.
When I speak for FESCo, I say so! When I don't say otherwise, I
only speak
for myself! I'm not a spokesman!
Right, not a spokesman for FESCo, but still a community representative,
elected by parts of the community. Whether you fight solely for yourself
or whether you believe you act on behalf of the community, isn't obvious.
I think more packagers are more concerned about too high hurdles -- when
releasing a bug-fix update (such as testing feedback becoming mandatory
even for niche packages) -- than about a policy on what sort of updates
(and frequency of updates) would be permitted *without* special intervention.
And FYI, I'm the only one who took your defense during and after
the FESCo
meeting when those remarks were made about you.
Well, thanks for any defense, but dragging me into the argument in a public
meeting has set off the booby trap.
6:03 p.m.
New subject: Adventurous updates? (was: Re: Stable Release Updates types proposal)
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Right, not a spokesman for FESCo, but still a community
representative,
elected by parts of the community. Whether you fight solely for yourself
or whether you believe you act on behalf of the community, isn't obvious.
Well, it's really both:
* I am personally in favor of non-conservative updates.
* I believe I am also representing a huge portion of the community
(including the actual users), also in the light of the results of Adam
Williamson's poll. That portion of the community also appears to be mostly
ignored by the rest of FESCo and by the Board, which makes me feel all the
more that I need to pick up the fight. If it were just myself, I wouldn't
fight that much for it. (You don't see me fighting for Bluecurve/Quarticurve
by default (as would be my personal preference), for example. ;-) )
I think more packagers are more concerned about too high hurdles --
when
releasing a bug-fix update (such as testing feedback becoming mandatory
even for niche packages) -- than about a policy on what sort of updates
(and frequency of updates) would be permitted *without* special
intervention.
I see that as a big problem as well, and I've also been fighting against
that. With little success, as you have seen. :-( While the proposal that's
now being discussed is not as bad as some of the other ones, it's very much
at the border of the tolerable and I fear that any amendments are more
likely to drag it on the side of the intolerable than on the side of the
tolerable. :-(
Well, thanks for any defense, but dragging me into the argument in a
public meeting has set off the booby trap.
Well, that's true, and I'm sorry for that. It really wasn't my intention!
Kevin Kofler
11:56 a.m.
New subject: Adventurous updates?
Michael Schwendt wrote:
But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped
through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take
the risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that
part of Fedora.
That's *exactly* what I am afraid of... that Fedora is going to get
turned into a distribution that is afraid to take risks.
We have plenty of those already. We NEED a distribution willing to take
risks, because that is how progress happens. (Or at least, how it
happens at a non-glacial pace.)
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
3:09 p.m.
New subject: Adventurous updates?
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad@spew> wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped
> through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take
> the risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that
> part of Fedora.
That's *exactly* what I am afraid of... that Fedora is going to get
turned into a distribution that is afraid to take risks.
We have plenty of those already. We NEED a distribution willing to take
risks, because that is how progress happens. (Or at least, how it
happens at a non-glacial pace.)
Managing risk does not mean running away from it. The problem with
many in the conversation is an implicit assumption that people are
wanting that by default. There could be multiple ways to manage risk..
its a matter of finding out if a method is a good one, a bad one, can
be improved, or can be thrown away. So some people would like the
quality of updates to go up, some people would like to have what they
consider un-needed bureaucracy go away, and there may be ways to do
both... but first people have to sit down and listen to each other
versus throwing emails back and forth about how horrible someone else
is.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
6:58 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 03:20:02AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
> Right after you _prove_ that this IS the case. How quick would you be
> to reject that poll as unscientific and meaningless if it didn't go your
> way? I thought it was a bad idea and didn't even take a look. How
> widespread was the poll among regular users (not developers)?
There is no need to prove it: The mere RISK of losing 70-80% of our users
(which is exactly what is going to happen if the poll happens to be
representative, but those changes get implemented anyway) is a risk not to
be taken lightly.
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_ implement
the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
represent a significant user sample?
Without having accurate numbers, it's hard to tell. As Adam pointed out
elsewhere, the numbers only show that these users _exist_, they cannot
possibly specify a quantity in terms of overall users.
That aside, the flow of users isn't unidirectional. Regardless what policy
is implemented, Fedora will lose some users. The question how many users may
be _gained_ by implementing a certain policy should also be asked.
And that's a question that is independent of what policy ends up being
chosen.
Cheers,
Peter
10:14 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do
_not_
implement
the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
represent a significant user sample?
How many users do we need?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
8:49 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> implement
> the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
> represent a significant user sample?
How many users do we need?
sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which user number are you
referring to?
Cheers,
Peter
9:14 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> > implement
> > the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
> > represent a significant user sample?
>
> How many users do we need?
sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which user number are you
referring to?
I'd venture he meant in response to your "the poll did not represent a
significant user sample" comment. So, how many users are needed to make it
representative?
-- Rex
10:23 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>> > implement
>> > the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
>> > represent a significant user sample?
>>
>> How many users do we need?
>
> sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which user number are you
> referring to?
I'd venture he meant in response to your "the poll did not represent a
significant user sample" comment. So, how many users are needed to make it
representative?
Well you would want to poll a group that you knew had been active for
a while, and had some certainty that they were unique individuals. I
know several people who register 3-4 accounts on forums so that they
can vote more often or play games. I don't know how many people do
that but the risk usually makes these sorts of polls have lower
confidence levels to around 50%. [EG a statician looking at the data
would say that it is no more valid than flipping a coin.] This is NOT
to say that the poll end data is in the end wrong just that trying to
be more confident in the data (whether it was that Fast, Slow, or
Cowboy Bob) can not be determined. So if the data had shown that
people wanted conservative, I would hopefully be saying the same
things if people said it proved their point.
A more valid poll might be possible by the following method:
If we assumed that the people who had been registered in FAS for over
6 months and had signed the CLA met the first two definitions, you
would need to randomly select about 3000 of them and have at least 600
answer the poll to have (i think) a 90% confidence level in the poll.
I think the questions need to be simple yes/no ones to qualify for the
'easiest' tests, multiple choice results require something like
multiple asking worded slightly different or some such thing. Again
this is from a class I took 20 years ago so a real mathematician,
psychologist, etc would know better.
I also do not want to imply or say that this is wanted/possible etc.
There would be a whole range of issues that would have to get approval
or checked to see if assumptions were valid.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
3:27 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 21:23 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
If we assumed that the people who had been registered in FAS for over
6 months and had signed the CLA met the first two definitions, you
would need to randomly select about 3000 of them and have at least 600
answer the poll to have (i think) a 90% confidence level in the poll.
I think the questions need to be simple yes/no ones to qualify for the
'easiest' tests, multiple choice results require something like
multiple asking worded slightly different or some such thing. Again
this is from a class I took 20 years ago so a real mathematician,
psychologist, etc would know better.
This unfortunately would also be a very selective set of folks, as it
wouldn't include any of our pure users, who aren't contributors via FAS.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
4:47 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 21:23 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> If we assumed that the people who had been registered in FAS for over
> 6 months and had signed the CLA met the first two definitions, you
> would need to randomly select about 3000 of them and have at least 600
> answer the poll to have (i think) a 90% confidence level in the poll.
> I think the questions need to be simple yes/no ones to qualify for the
> 'easiest' tests, multiple choice results require something like
> multiple asking worded slightly different or some such thing. Again
> this is from a class I took 20 years ago so a real mathematician,
> psychologist, etc would know better.
>
>
This unfortunately would also be a very selective set of folks, as it
wouldn't include any of our pure users, who aren't contributors via FAS.
You are correct, a survey of them would not be possible to extend to
an entire population unless the survey was larger. However one could
consider it a poll survey of people who have shown an strong
interest in Fedora. Survey's are in the end only good for certain
things.. figuring out what kinds of groups you are attracting is
something a survey can help answer. However deciding which elevator
algorithm to use in the kernel.. they are not.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
1:07 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
Go ahead Jesse
Oscar Bacho
P.D. I'm a user
1:24 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
2010/3/16 Oscar Bacho <ob.system(a)gmail.com>
There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include
gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
Go ahead Jesse
Oscar Bacho
P.D. I'm a user
I'm on "stable F12"
1:34 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/16/2010 11:54 AM, Oscar Bacho wrote:
2010/3/16 Oscar Bacho <ob.system(a)gmail.com <mailto:ob.system@gmail.com>>
There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include
gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
Go ahead Jesse
Oscar Bacho
P.D. I'm a user
I'm on "stable F12"
Updates policy won't necessarily help in this case. AutoQA might but
then cross repo coordination is at times tricky esp with much less
people taking care of administration of third party repos.
Rahul
12:01 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Updates policy won't necessarily help in this case. AutoQA might
but
then cross repo coordination is at times tricky esp with much less
people taking care of administration of third party repos.
There's no problem to fix here at all. An updated gstreamer-plugins-bad is
already available from RPM Fusion Free updates.
Kevin Kofler
noon
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Oscar Bacho wrote:
There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include
gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
You just need to update gstreamer-plugins-bad from RPM Fusion as well, it's
already available in the RPM Fusion updates.
Kevin Kofler
10:45 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 09:14:06PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>> > implement
>> > the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
>> > represent a significant user sample?
>>
>> How many users do we need?
>
> sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which user number are you
> referring to?
I'd venture he meant in response to your "the poll did not represent a
significant user sample" comment. So, how many users are needed to make it
representative?
I don't know what the numbers are to make it significant. I'd probably be
happy with anything in the range of a couple of hundreds or more. Maybe
someone better versed in statistics can chime in here.
The tricky problem with this is that the pool the participants are chosen
from matters a lot. For example, if you go out on the street during the
soccer world championship finals and ask people what they think of soccer,
the results are likely to be skewed because most people that are really into
soccer will be at home watching the game (this is an analogy only and will
present some flaws in direct comparison to the issue at hand).
This skewing of results presents itself with any form of survey, whether it
be forums, mailing lists, irc, etc. Numbers are easy to get given our user
numbers. Chosing a good sample is what is much harder. And don't get me
wrong, I don't dispute the results of Adam's survey. My point is that we
need to be careful on the interpretation of data and be very conservative -
regardless of what the data actually says.
Cheers,
Peter
11:26 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 3/14/2010 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>>> implement
>>> the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
>>> represent a significant user sample?
>>>
>> How many users do we need?
>>
> sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which user number are you
> referring to?
>
I'd venture he meant in response to your "the poll did not represent a
significant user sample" comment. So, how many users are needed to make it
representative?
No, I meant how many users does Fedora need to be a viable
distribution? Could we loose 70-80% (seems far fetched) of our user
base and still be viable? If we can, I don't really care how many
users we loose as long as Fedora becomes more useful to me. What
concerns me most is retaining a large percentage of committed
maintainers and community members, and that is a small enough number
that I think we can poll effectively.
11:43 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do
_not_
implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
did not represent a significant user sample?
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora as
it is now!
Kevin Kofler
11:43 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
> did not represent a significant user sample?
>
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora as
it is now!
Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
are not. Otherwise we wouldn't been having such length discussions on
this topic. I particularly don't like that there is no enforced policy
on updates whatsoever and parts of Fedora acts differently from another.
Rahul
1:07 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
> as it is now!
Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
are not.
Yet they haven't left over it. So why would that suddenly change?
Kevin Kofler
1:33 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:07, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
>> as it is now!
>
> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
> are not.
Yet they haven't left over it. So why would that suddenly change?
Some have.
Some others arrive and say hi, their first update (the 300MB one you
get when installing 2 months after release) breaks something, they
leave (some will not even finish downloading such a huge amount and
leave).
Finally, even long time users can grow tired of having to fiddle with
their system after an update, and leave, even if they haven't until
now.
In the help forums (at least the french ones, don't know about the
others), I've seen some users staying on Fn-1 (and actually always
upgrading to Fn-1 after Fn is released) because they think it will be
more stable. I've seen people leaving because they were sick of not
being able to use their computer but rather having to fix something
after each update.
Once every months, I install Fedora on some users system (recurring
release party the first saturday of each months) using the liveCD so I
can teach them how to do it themselves. After the install is finished,
we don't have time/bandwidth to apply the huge amount of updates that
were released between F12 GA and now, so I have to leave him with the
job half done. All I can do is tell him how to update and then pray
that his system won't be broken afterwards, because if it is, I'm sure
I won't ever have a chance to fix it for him next month.
Finally, I'm so tired of receiving phone calls from my mother saying «
I don't understand, today I switched the computer on and it doesn't
work anymore » that I'm actually considering moving her to CentOS 6
when it is released, even if that means that I'll voluntarily remove
her the chance to benefit from a modern desktop.
So yes, users *are* leaving Fedora because of those updates, and we
should at least try to do something.
----------
Mathieu Bridon
6:23 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Am Sonntag, den 14.03.2010, 19:33 +0100 schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
Some others arrive and say hi, their first update (the 300MB one you
get when installing 2 months after release) breaks something, they
leave (some will not even finish downloading such a huge amount and
leave).
Finally, even long time users can grow tired of having to fiddle with
their system after an update, and leave, even if they haven't until
now.
I'm really puzzled.
The group which desires "more stable" releases heavily doubts the
reliability of Adams poll.
The same proponents heavily claim "broken updates", one would have to
fix one's system after *each* update, ... (see above).
I guess: We don't have any valid statistics about it, either!
(And given my personal experiences: There must be another distro named
Fedora around, which is updatable in most cases without any issues. I'll
try to find out, where I got my Fedora from ...)
Peter
11:13 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:33:30 +0100,
Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Once every months, I install Fedora on some users system (recurring
release party the first saturday of each months) using the liveCD so I
can teach them how to do it themselves. After the install is finished,
we don't have time/bandwidth to apply the huge amount of updates that
were released between F12 GA and now, so I have to leave him with the
job half done. All I can do is tell him how to update and then pray
that his system won't be broken afterwards, because if it is, I'm sure
I won't ever have a chance to fix it for him next month.
For events like this you might consider using custom spins or respins
done by Unity. It doesn't completely solve the problem, but it does prevent
an initial very large update.
6:28 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:07:53PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
>> as it is now!
>
> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
> are not.
Yet they haven't left over it.
I'd rather you replace this with "I haven't noticed them leaving yet",
I
think that might be more accurate. Fedora's user-base is somewhere in the
millions, it's hard to say what a particular user or even hundreds of users
do at any given time.
Especially the quiet ones. There are users that will file (the occasional)
bug reports but not know or care about the fedora forums or read the devel
list. The only way to notice they're not there anymore is when you get less
bug reports.
Cheers,
Peter
So why would that suddenly change?
7:40 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
>> Fedora as it is now!
>
> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users
> clearly are not.
Yet they haven't left over it. So why would that suddenly change?
Because the situation worsened dramatically recently.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
7:59 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Simo Sorce wrote:
Because the situation worsened dramatically recently.
Where's the evidence for that? I haven't noticed anything like that at all!
You (and others defending the same or a similar viewpoint) are quick to
point out the lack of statistical rigor in Adam Williamson's poll, but where
are your statistics backing the above claim?
Kevin Kofler
6:58 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Dne 15.3.2010 01:59, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Where's the evidence for that? I haven't noticed anything
like that at all!
Isn't it because KDE was always pushing huge amounts of updates, so
there is no change for you? Just asking ...
I (and especially my wife who started to bitterly copmlain about this to
me to the level I plan to switch her to something more stable) certainly
see this.
Matěj
--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
-- Andrew Lang
10:36 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/15/2010 01:40 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
Kevin Kofler<kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
>>> Fedora as it is now!
>>
>> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users
>> clearly are not.
>
> Yet they haven't left over it. So why would that suddenly change?
Because the situation worsened dramatically recently.
Did it?
Your observation doesn't match with mine:
* There have always been prematurely shipped, immature and dysfunctional
packages causing user-side malfunctions.
* The kernel has always not worked somewhere.
* KDE and perl packaging policies have not changed.
* There have always been broken package deps in updates.
* Fedora doesn't ship updated DVDs/CDs.
...
What has changed is
* the people in FPB and FESCO
* the number of packages in Fedora.
* the amount of bureaucracy.
* the packages being affected by "instability".
...
Where I have to agree with you
* I am perceiving an increasing unwillingness of maintainers to fix
bugs/defects/malfunctions of released packages.
* I am perceiving an increasingly low quality package submissions and of
low quality package reviews.
...
Ralf
4:11 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 13 March 2010 01:46, Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net> wrote:
Kevin, you are continually talking as if you represent a vast
majority
of all Fedora users and the Fedora project itself. You say "we" do
something, when you really mean "the KDE SIG". Please stop trying to
speak for everybody else.
FWIW, not even necessarily all of the KDE SIG either ...
MEF
--
Mary Ellen Foster -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/
Interaction Lab -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/InteractionLab
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity
number SC000278
2:15 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
> you define "more ammeniable to new contributors", so that's harder to
> address. Still, I think it's clear that at least some people use Fedora
> *because* it is leading (yes, almost bleeding) edge.
>
> And this is going to kill that. (Or will if it gets enforced.)
Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
picking up all the kinds of things Fedora is the first to integrate.
Stop trying to drag rawhide into our releases.
Could you explain to me, what makes Fedora exactly more leading edge
if we use a X-server beta that would fit better into rawhide then in a
release
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
2:16 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Thomas Janssen
<thomasj(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jesse Keating
<jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>> I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
>> you define "more ammeniable to new contributors", so that's harder
to
>> address. Still, I think it's clear that at least some people use Fedora
>> *because* it is leading (yes, almost bleeding) edge.
>>
>> And this is going to kill that. (Or will if it gets enforced.)
>
> Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
> its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
> release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
> picking up all the kinds of things Fedora is the first to integrate.
>
> Stop trying to drag rawhide into our releases.
Could you explain to me, what makes Fedora exactly more leading edge
if we use a X-server beta that would fit better into rawhide then in a
release
Wasn't ready with wording and clicked 'send' instead of 'discard'
sorry.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
8:45 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Anyone know of a distro that doesn't lag like Ubuntu/NewFedora?
Is
Mandrake kept up to date, or do they also make you wait months for new
versions? Because I am *seriously* considering switching right now...
Arch?
9:54 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:05:38PM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Anyone know of a distro that doesn't lag like Ubuntu/NewFedora?
Is
Mandrake kept up to date, or do they also make you wait months for new
versions? Because I am *seriously* considering switching right now...
[...]
Please. "Rawhide is => that way" is getting really,
really old.
What's the problem, exactly, here? I've been running Rawhide on my desktop
at home and work for a couple of years now with no serious complaints.
--
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org>
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
11:50 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Miller wrote:
What's the problem, exactly, here? I've been running Rawhide
on my desktop
at home and work for a couple of years now with no serious complaints.
Oh no, not again! This has already been explained several times!
== begin paste ==
Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with disruptive changes (and there's no
real way to avoid this problem, see e.g. my replies to Doug Ledford's "To
semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question..." thread for
details, but it has also been brought up in other threads), prereleases of
software which is only expected to be stable at release time, no testing
repository (so all the breakage gets dumped directly on the Rawhide user)
etc.
The upcoming release branch is also not the answer. It is not available at
all half of the time, and it is feature-frozen, so it doesn't actually get
the expected feature upgrades (and with a policy like the one you appear to
defend, it won't get them at all, not even after the release).
== end paste ==
I find it interesting that you haven't seen any problems with Rawhide. This
does not quite match the experience of most people.
Kevin Kofler
4:01 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Le samedi 13 mars 2010 à 06:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with disruptive changes (and
there's no
real way to avoid this problem,
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
rawhide?
In the end, despite your repeated claims to represent the "Fedora way",
it seems to me your preferred way of operation relies heavily on your
group being almost the only one to follow it, and if others followed
your lead you wouldn't be so happy about it. And that stinks. Fedora
spent a lot of time removing those kinds of asymetric arrangements from
its workflow.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
11:50 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes
in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
rawhide?
"My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive. They're
minor
feature releases which are backwards compatible at ABI/API level, which
don't remove applications (in fact, I packaged KPilot standalone because
upstream removed it from kdepim, I really care a lot about this kind of
things!), which don't remove features from applications, which don't require
any manual user interaction to perform, but which fix many bugs and add
several great features. They're exactly the class of updates I do NOT want
to lose.
In the end, despite your repeated claims to represent the
"Fedora way",
it seems to me your preferred way of operation relies heavily on your
group being almost the only one to follow it, and if others followed
your lead you wouldn't be so happy about it. And that stinks. Fedora
spent a lot of time removing those kinds of asymetric arrangements from
its workflow.
Nonsense. I'm actually unhappy about some groups not implementing the same
type of policy. And no, we (KDE SIG) aren't the only one which does. E.g.
the kernel was upgraded in F12, and also quite often in the past.
Kevin Kofler
11:52 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
> rawhide?
>
"My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
I am sorry but that has been proved to be not true multiple times in the
past. It is not the question of your dedication or the amount of work
you put into it. Really, you cannot expect to push such major changes
and not cause regressions for some users at the best. We have done
reasonably well at times but it has always been a risky proposition.
Rahul
12:49 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>> rawhide?
>>
> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
I am sorry but that has been proved to be not true multiple times in
the
past.
"proved"? Really? Suffice to say that we may have to agree to disagree
with on statement.
-- Rex
12:55 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes
in
>>> rawhide?
>>>
>> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
> I am sorry but that has been proved to be not true multiple times in the
> past.
"proved"? Really? Suffice to say that we may have to agree to disagree
with on statement.
My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in addition
though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
-Mike
1:55 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Mike McGrath wrote:
My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in
addition
though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
If you don't see the problem(s) with the conclusions you're trying to draw
here, then this discussion is not going to get very far.
-- Rex
1:58 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
> My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in addition
> though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
> BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
If you don't see the problem(s) with the conclusions you're trying to draw
here, then this discussion is not going to get very far.
I stopped drawing conclusions on this list a while ago, I'm letting you
know the last kde update was disruptive.
-Mike
6:16 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
> rawhide?
>
"My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
I fee that they have been for me. I manage a small shop of some 20 or
so linux users and every KDE update (even minor ones often) brings up
some quirk that I have to track down or change that the user has to get
used to. Rarely disastrous, but annoying and distracting from other
tasks. Is this "disruptive"?
6:49 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>> rawhide?
>>
> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
>
I fee that they have been for me. I manage a small shop of some 20 or
so linux users and every KDE update (even minor ones often) brings up
some quirk that I have to track down or change that the user has to get
used to. Rarely disastrous, but annoying and distracting from other
tasks. Is this "disruptive"?
Feedback like this is valuable.
Please share the details of any/all specific instances, I'd like to compile
and document (and bugzilla when appropriate) everything for both our own and
(kde) upstream use. I'd prefer it happened outside of this thread, though.
(perhaps on our kde list?).
-- Rex
3:56 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:31 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
>> similar distro isn't for them.
>
> I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> working out a method that satisfies more users.
Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
People¹ use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
identity, then people¹ won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.
Even if we were to institute a more conservative update policy, we
wouldn't necessarily actually sacrifice Fedora's leading-edge nature.
Point The First: Ubuntu's update policy is really extremely
conservative. To a rough approximation they update almost nothing. They
do security fixes. You have to argue really, really hard to get any kind
of bug fixed, though. None of the proposals made so far is anywhere near
as tight as Ubuntu's policy.
Point The Second: post-release updates are not the be-all and end-all.
At release time, Fedora is generally more cutting-edge in at least core
components than the time-equivalent Ubuntu release (and Mandriva, and
SUSE, and yadda yadda). Case in point - F12 and Ubuntu 9.10 are more or
less contemporaneous, yet F12 shipped with newer versions of many
components, notably X server. (We're the _only_ major late-2009 cycle
distro to have shipped X server 1.7, everyone else shipped 1.6). So even
if both followed exactly identical update policies, Fedora would still
be the more 'cutting-edge' release.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
5:20 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 13:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:31 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> >> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> >> similar distro isn't for them.
> >
> > I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> > working out a method that satisfies more users.
>
> Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
> People¹ use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
> identity, then people¹ won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.
Even if we were to institute a more conservative update policy, we
wouldn't necessarily actually sacrifice Fedora's leading-edge nature.
Point The First: Ubuntu's update policy is really extremely
conservative. To a rough approximation they update almost nothing. They
do security fixes. You have to argue really, really hard to get any kind
of bug fixed, though. None of the proposals made so far is anywhere near
as tight as Ubuntu's policy.
Point The Second: post-release updates are not the be-all and end-all.
At release time, Fedora is generally more cutting-edge in at least core
components than the time-equivalent Ubuntu release (and Mandriva, and
SUSE, and yadda yadda). Case in point - F12 and Ubuntu 9.10 are more or
less contemporaneous, yet F12 shipped with newer versions of many
components, notably X server. (We're the _only_ major late-2009 cycle
distro to have shipped X server 1.7, everyone else shipped 1.6). So even
if both followed exactly identical update policies, Fedora would still
be the more 'cutting-edge' release.
Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that stability
once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
Fedora to fill.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
5:55 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Hello Jesse,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:20:13 PM, you wrote:
Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that
stability
once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
Fedora to fill.
Indeed.
It means the Fedora community will have grown up enough to understand
and even embrace both Fedora's strengths and its weaknesses. The
ongoing struggle is to take advantage of the former while working to
minimize the effects of the latter.
4:52 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that
stability
once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
Fedora to fill.
I've avoided participating in these threads, since I don't really want
to feed a flame war, but now I'll mention that this is something I'd
like Fedora to be.
I mostly use and contribute to Fedora because it's an RPM/Red Hat style
distribution with a strong emphasis on community contributors, free
software and upstream.
As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
considering switching those to Ubuntu once the new LTS release comes
out. I've taught these people how to update their systems, but I'm
always a bit worried that the adventurous updates are going to break
something they need to do their daily computing.
I have no problem with the new releases being leading edge, I actually
quite like that. I can always put the new release onto a USB stick and
test that the important stuff is working on a particular system before
upgrading, especially since I upgrade other people's systems about once
a year, when the old release becomes EOL. But I can't do this sort of
testing for the updates being pushed to the stable releases, so I'd like
to be able to trust those not to break things, at least to some extent.
--
Ville-Pekka Vainio
5:46 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've
also
installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
considering switching those to Ubuntu once the new LTS release comes
out.
You actually want a different distribution, likely a Fedora LTS, not
current Fedora.
Unfortunately, Fedora's leadership repeatedly had brushed off a Fedora
LTS as "unmaintainable" and redirected people to CentOS.
Ralf
6:35 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Le 13/03/2010 12:46, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
You actually want a different distribution, likely a Fedora LTS, not
current Fedora.
Unfortunately, Fedora's leadership repeatedly had brushed off a Fedora
LTS as "unmaintainable" and redirected people to CentOS.
Ralf
Our primary mission is to lead the advancement of free software at a
fast pace. Bring the best and the latest of free technologies to the
mass, that's what differences us from other distributions.
Enterprise Linux is the closest thing to a Fedora LTS, that's why EPEL
was created and maintained by Fedora Project.
Our infrastructure, our tools are freely available, if anyone want a
Fedora LTS, just start a SIG and work on it. If you can bring a
sustainable project, i highly doubt that Fedora leadership would veto it.
I don't buy the crap about "leadership", Fedora is what its contributors
want it to be. If you dislike current leadership, vote for others
candidates or stand for the next election.
Fedora is already the upstream for Entreprise Linux, why it couldn't be
for a potential Fedora LTS ?
H.
6:42 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/13/10 11:46, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
> pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
> As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
> installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
> considering switching those to Ubuntu once the new LTS release comes
> out.
You actually want a different distribution, likely a Fedora LTS, not
current Fedora.
Unfortunately, Fedora's leadership repeatedly had brushed off a Fedora
LTS as "unmaintainable" and redirected people to CentOS.
But they're right to say it's unmaintainable in the long term aren't
they? You said yourself in your impressive summary I agree with:
> * Backporting might be simple in some cases, but it might not be
> possible or uneffective in others.
What are people meant to do when they commit to stability in the sense
of not uplevelling things and introducing new code, and then find that
backporting is "not possible or uneffective"? It's fair to imagine that
the upstream and its lib dependencies' HEADs won't stay similar to
whatever it is that was released in most cases just to make life easy.
Then the workload is increasingly "nontrivial" or impossible as the
codebases diverge.
Is the effort and personpower poured into trying to hold the line at
some arbitrary release not in the end better poured into moving things
forward and improving them?
I don't ask it idly or without understanding the value of stability at
the end user, we will be shipping very large numbers of embedded devices
where updates must not trash or damage the user experience. I am just
wondering if the focus on backport-based stability is in the end
illusory and doomed.
-Andy
7:07 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
+10 to that!
Indeed!!
7:51 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Peter Boy <pboy(a)barkhof.uni-bremen.de> said:
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> > argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
>
> +10 to that!
Indeed!!
Because there are conflicting goals between maintainers of major
componenets. We have major things like GNOME and Firefox, where updates
are generally kept to minor release updates, avoiding major changes
during a Fedora release cycle. Then we have major things like KDE,
where every new version is pushed to all current Fedora releases as
rapidly as possible.
The argument is that Fedora should aim to have a single update policy,
so that users can know what to expect (without having to know the
different policies of different sets of maintainers).
The argument started because, after a bad update, FESCo talked about
trying to get more testing before pushing updates, and Kevin Kofler
started a flame war here to "rally support" against a non-existant
proposal he didn't like.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
8:54 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
technologies are over 10 years out of date!
If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
age infrastructure. Bandwidth is required for many more applications than
just fetching Fedora updates.
Kevin Kofler
8:54 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
>
I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
technologies are over 10 years out of date!
If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
age infrastructure.
This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
Rahul
9:16 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 03:54 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
>> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
>>
> I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
> communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
> technologies are over 10 years out of date!
>
> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
> infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
> age infrastructure.
>
This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
Fedora had never been usable on really low bandwidth from its first day
on - Telling otherwise is simply not true.
The only option to use Fedora with such kind of low bandwidth systems is
to disable automated updates, PackageKit etc. and to resort to manual
yum updates, being run when such system has access to high bandwidth,
rsp. costs and/or time allow.
Finally, it's not the number of updates which render using Fedora on
such systems tedious, it's the "big packages", e.g. the kernel,
openoffice or even worse some of these 100MB-large game data files.
Ralf
10:07 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 08:46 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
> down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
> bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
>
Fedora had never been usable on really low bandwidth from its first day
on - Telling otherwise is simply not true.
The past does not dictate the future
even assuming this claim is true. The reality is that we are hardly going to get a fairly
small percentage of free and open source apps in the Fedora repository assuming that we
are wildly successful and in reality, ABI breakages are going to cause problems for many
of our users including users with internal applications. If someone refuses to accept
this reality and want to live in the ideal world where everything is packaged and
available in some repo, their solutions are not going to work out well. Acknowledging
that we can do better would be a good first step. I am not saying that, ABI breakages
should be avoided at all cost (that holds true for EL as well) but we can make avoid some
of more gratuitous ones atleast.
Rahul
4:13 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 05:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 08:46 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
>> down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
>> bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
>>
> Fedora had never been usable on really low bandwidth from its first day
> on - Telling otherwise is simply not true.
The past does not dictate the future even assuming this claim is true.
I know this is true from personal experience and I remember having told
you so several before.
[I live in a "DSL white spot" in Germany and have been using Fedora over
modem, ISDN and low bandwidth DSL for several years.]
The reality is that we are hardly going to get a fairly small
percentage of free and open source apps in the Fedora repository assuming that we are
wildly successful and in reality, ABI breakages are going to cause problems for many of
our users including users with internal applications. If someone refuses to accept this
reality and want to live in the ideal world where everything is packaged and available in
some repo, their solutions are not going to work out well. Acknowledging that we can do
better would be a good first step. I am not saying that, ABI breakages should be avoided
at all cost (that holds true for EL as well) but we can make avoid some of more gratuitous
ones atleast.
I don't see any connection between this remark and using Fedora on
low
bandwidth system.
As I already said: The only option to use Fedora (or any other
non-static distro - The same consideration applies to other distros, as
well) with low bandwidth connectivity is applying package update
filtering, being picky on update schedules and being picky about package
selection.
That said, when I used to be restricted to bandwidth, I e.g. often opted
to temporarily ignore certain updates (e.g. kernel, desktop or
openoffice updates) and only applied those updates, of which I knew were
having a direct impact on me.
Ralf
10:42 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:24:15PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
> infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
> age infrastructure.
>
This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
That's rather unfair. Fedora already has minimum system requirements,
and they're not small. The installer requires quite a chunk of memory,
and we chose to drop support for pre-i686 processors because they're
ancient, not really up to running Fedora, and anyone stuck with one has
alternatives that would be better for them then any attempt to run
Fedora on that hardware.
One of the great things about the whole Free software system is that one
distribution dropping something doesn't mean those users are completely
screwed with nowhere to go; it just means they might be better off with
something more tailored to their needs.
Ewan
10:46 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 10:12 PM, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:24:15PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
>> infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
>> age infrastructure.
>>
>>
> This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
> down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
> bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
>
>
That's rather unfair. Fedora already has minimum system requirements,
and they're not small.
Yes but I would never call people who use systems that are older either
because of their economic condition or scarcity of good infrastructure
as being in the stone age. We might not be able to cater to them but
there is a big difference between that and talking down the audience you
aren't able to serve.
Rahul
9:40 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to
support
communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
technologies are over 10 years out of date!
If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
age infrastructure. Bandwidth is required for many more applications than
just fetching Fedora updates.
That is just completely out of touch with reality. We live in the real
world and have to deal with real problems; you can't just wave a magic
wand and make them go away.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
9:47 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
technologies are over 10 years out of date!
If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
age infrastructure. Bandwidth is required for many more applications than
just fetching Fedora updates.
Kevin Kofler
Be sure to let our friends in developing countries know that to make Fedora's
life easier, they'd better get their infrastructure updated pronto?
I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich people
in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
-Eric
9:52 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for
rich people
in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
Or we could just make Fedora print money. ;)
~spot
P.S. Please don't try this.
11:56 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:52:35 AM, spot you wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just
for rich people
> in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
Or we could just make Fedora print money. ;)
~spot
P.S. Please don't try this.
Could you please add RFEs for World Peace, Curing the common cold,
Turning back the ravages of time, and "Should have run when I met my
ex" to that?
12:14 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 12:56 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:52:35 AM, spot you wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich people
>> in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
> Or we could just make Fedora print money. ;)
> ~spot
> P.S. Please don't try this.
Could you please add RFEs for World Peace, Curing the common cold,
Turning back the ravages of time, and "Should have run when I met my
ex" to that?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=another-reason-vitamin...
YMMV.
--
Peter
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
1:51 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Be sure to let our friends in developing countries know that to make
Fedora's life easier, they'd better get their infrastructure updated
pronto?
Developing countries need to, well, DEVELOP their infrastructure. In the
meantime, there are plenty of distributions with fewer updates the people
unlucky enough to be stuck with such outdated infrastructure can use. We
shouldn't let the whole world be restricted by limitations of 80s or 90s
infrastructure out of some misguided principle of inclusiveness or, worse,
political correctness. There needs to be SOME distribution targeted at
modern infrastructure, using the possibilities modern technology allows, and
Fedora is a good candidate, due to our history and objectives. The only
long-term solution to the problem is for those people to get access to
contemporary technologies anyway. If you really want to help these people,
you need to contribute to efforts to upgrade their technology, e.g. through
monetary donations, participation in infrastructure projects etc. Turning
Fedora into a conservative distribution is only a misguided attempt at
curing the symptoms, it does nothing to solve the true problem.
I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for
rich
people in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
Re the "rich people" argument, in most of Europe, broadband is actually LESS
expensive than dial-up for anything more than very casual use, because dial-
up is usually metered (by time duration of use, so reducing bandwidth
requirements only helps indirectly) whereas broadband is usually on a
flatrate.
Kevin Kofler
2:06 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 20:51 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Be sure to let our friends in developing countries know that to make
> Fedora's life easier, they'd better get their infrastructure updated
> pronto?
Developing countries need to, well, DEVELOP their infrastructure. In the
meantime, there are plenty of distributions with fewer updates the people
unlucky enough to be stuck with such outdated infrastructure can use. We
shouldn't let the whole world be restricted by limitations of 80s or 90s
infrastructure out of some misguided principle of inclusiveness or, worse,
political correctness. There needs to be SOME distribution targeted at
modern infrastructure, using the possibilities modern technology allows, and
Fedora is a good candidate, due to our history and objectives. The only
long-term solution to the problem is for those people to get access to
contemporary technologies anyway. If you really want to help these people,
you need to contribute to efforts to upgrade their technology, e.g. through
monetary donations, participation in infrastructure projects etc. Turning
Fedora into a conservative distribution is only a misguided attempt at
curing the symptoms, it does nothing to solve the true problem.
So until we get faster Internet, forget about us? You're awfully quick
to write off a huge part of the world so that Fedora can match *your*
vision for it.
Thanks for the party, I'll see myself out.
Jonathan
7:28 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
I don't see this as being a "basic principle" at all.
For an enterprise
distro like RHEL or CentOS, sure. But not for something like Fedora. What
counts is that all software in Fedora depending on the library gets rebuilt
and pushed at the same time. (That's what grouped updates are for.) We do
not support third-party software.
There's a difference between not supporting third-party software (is
that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
intentionally breaking it.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
9:42 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Chris Adams wrote:
There's a difference between not supporting third-party software
(is
that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
intentionally breaking it.
There's no policy saying we support it, ergo by default, we don't.
And we don't intentionally break it, we upgrade a library for some good
reason (there's always a good reason why a soname bump gets pushed) and that
happens to break some third-party software we don't and can't know about.
(When we do, e.g. for software in RPM Fusion, we alert the affected
maintainers so they can rebuild their packages.)
For example, Firefox security updates are impossible to do without ABI
breaks in xulrunner.
Kevin Kofler
2:05 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 12/03/10 03:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
> There's a difference between not supporting third-party software (is
> that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
> intentionally breaking it.
There's no policy saying we support it, ergo by default, we don't.
And we don't intentionally break it, we upgrade a library for some good
reason (there's always a good reason why a soname bump gets pushed) and that
happens to break some third-party software we don't and can't know about.
(When we do, e.g. for software in RPM Fusion, we alert the affected
maintainers so they can rebuild their packages.)
For example, Firefox security updates are impossible to do without ABI
breaks in xulrunner.
Kevin Kofler
I really strongly disagree that ABI interfaces of the mainly used
shared libraries could be allowed to change in a "stable" release.
We develop internal applications that are packaged and go out to a few
users. We use Fedora primarily as an OS to run applications we need
rather than an experimentation platform.
I consider it unacceptable for a system "update" to break the
ABI for these and any other third-party packages. It would mean failures
in the field that would require live intervention. This is what
rawhide is for.
We would end up by turning off Fedora updating on these systems and in
effect manage the updates of the system ourselves probably from our own
repository (our own Fedora spin) or, probably move to a different system.
I am sure a lot of users, like us, use Fedora for there own purposes and
develop there own applications for it, but do not maintain them in the
main Fedora package tree. There's more to Fedora than just the main Fedora
repository...
Terry
9:07 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Terry Barnaby wrote:
I really strongly disagree that ABI interfaces of the mainly used
shared libraries could be allowed to change in a "stable" release.
We develop internal applications that are packaged and go out to a few
users. We use Fedora primarily as an OS to run applications we need
rather than an experimentation platform.
Then you as the provider of those applications are responsible for
rebuilding them.
I consider it unacceptable for a system "update" to break
the
ABI for these and any other third-party packages. It would mean failures
in the field that would require live intervention. This is what
rawhide is for.
We would end up by turning off Fedora updating on these systems and in
effect manage the updates of the system ourselves probably from our own
repository (our own Fedora spin) or, probably move to a different system.
I am sure a lot of users, like us, use Fedora for there own purposes and
develop there own applications for it, but do not maintain them in the
main Fedora package tree. There's more to Fedora than just the main Fedora
repository...
Why are you using the conditional tense? Fedora CURRENTLY does NOT provide
any ABI guarantees. There ARE ALREADY updates which change the ABI (you
recognize them as they are normally grouped with rebuilds of other stuff for
the bumped ABI). The people who want to change things are the ones who DON'T
want to allow soname bumps. The only reason the core libraries you use are
apparently not affected is that those libraries are used by so many packages
that rebuilding them all would be impractical.
That said, this also leads to a possible solution: we could make a short
list of "core" libraries for which soname bumps would be impractical to
perform in a release, which would then also double as some form of ABI
guarantee.
Kevin Kofler
9:14 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Fedora CURRENTLY does NOT provide
any ABI guarantees. There ARE ALREADY updates which change the ABI (you
recognize them as they are normally grouped with rebuilds of other stuff for
the bumped ABI). The people who want to change things are the ones who DON'T
want to allow soname bumps. The only reason the core libraries you use are
apparently not affected is that those libraries are used by so many packages
that rebuilding them all would be impractical.
Stop shouting already. Those abi-changing updates are there because YOU
keep pushing them, making the lives of our users hard without any good
justification other than 'my way or the highway'. It is increasingly
becoming clear that no reasonable compromise is possible with you.
Matthias
9:35 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthias Clasen wrote:
Stop shouting already. Those abi-changing updates are there because
YOU
keep pushing them, making the lives of our users hard without any good
justification other than 'my way or the highway'. It is increasingly
becoming clear that no reasonable compromise is possible with you.
Uh, I am far from the only one who pushes ABI-changing updates. I'm not even
one of the main offenders. The only ABI bump I remember pushing on my own is
aseqmm/drumstick which is under heavy development upstream, is used by
exactly 1 application in Fedora (KMid2) and only 2 or 3 other apps which are
also under heavy development, regularly pick up new versions of drumstick
and even bundle the drumstick they need (so for third-party builds, if the
version in Fedora is not good or stable enough, the bundled version can be
used). The KDE 4.4 update set did include a few ABI bumps (sip 4.10,
kdelibs-experimental, kipi framework in kdegraphics-libs) with associated
rebuilds, but it was not my decision alone to push that update. Please don't
turn this into an ad hominem discussion.
For example, there are many cases of libraries which are basically only used
by one application, at least within our repository. Those routinely get
bumped, and I really don't see why we'd need to stop that.
Kevin Kofler
12:19 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:05:28AM +0000, Terry Barnaby wrote:
On 12/03/10 03:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>> There's a difference between not supporting third-party software (is
>> that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
>> intentionally breaking it.
>
> There's no policy saying we support it, ergo by default, we don't.
>
> And we don't intentionally break it, we upgrade a library for some good
> reason (there's always a good reason why a soname bump gets pushed) and that
> happens to break some third-party software we don't and can't know about.
> (When we do, e.g. for software in RPM Fusion, we alert the affected
> maintainers so they can rebuild their packages.)
>
> For example, Firefox security updates are impossible to do without ABI
> breaks in xulrunner.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
I really strongly disagree that ABI interfaces of the mainly used
shared libraries could be allowed to change in a "stable" release.
We develop internal applications that are packaged and go out to a few
users. We use Fedora primarily as an OS to run applications we need
rather than an experimentation platform.
I consider it unacceptable for a system "update" to break the
ABI for these and any other third-party packages. It would mean failures
in the field that would require live intervention. This is what
rawhide is for.
We would end up by turning off Fedora updating on these systems and in
effect manage the updates of the system ourselves probably from our own
repository (our own Fedora spin) or, probably move to a different system.
I am sure a lot of users, like us, use Fedora for there own purposes and
develop there own applications for it, but do not maintain them in the
main Fedora package tree. There's more to Fedora than just the main Fedora
repository...
While I agree with the sentiment that we should try not to break ABI; I do
have to repeat -- Fedora does not require maintaines to backport fixes.
That means that Fedora will break ABI in a release if there is a good
reason to include the new upstream version. (security fix, bugfix that is
deemed worthy, probably not simply for a new feature... but features may
be the reason an ABI breaks when we pull in a new upstream release to fix
a bug and the release includes it.)
If you really find this unacceptable, there's two options:
A) Fedora requires backports for problems that break ABI. Note that this
also means that Fedora may need to have people who create non-upstreamable
patches to software since some upstream fixes may require ABI changes and
we'd need to fix those a different way.
B) You use a different distribution.
-Toshio
12:47 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
A) Fedora requires backports for problems that break ABI. Note that
this
also means that Fedora may need to have people who create non-upstreamable
patches to software since some upstream fixes may require ABI changes and
we'd need to fix those a different way.
Other distributions manage this without too much trouble, so I don't see
it being a problem to adopt this policy.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
1:18 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Hello Matthew,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 1:47:18 PM, you wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> A) Fedora requires backports for problems that break ABI. Note
that this
> also means that Fedora may need to have people who create non-upstreamable
> patches to software since some upstream fixes may require ABI changes and
> we'd need to fix those a different way.
Other distributions manage this without too much trouble, so I
don't see
it being a problem to adopt this policy.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
1 word: Resources - person power, time, funding, equipment, etc.
Fedora is a free software distribution "staffed" informally by
volunteers (except for that minority of folks who may be paid to work
on Fedora as their day job).
RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those backpotrs for
free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a
component for Centos happens to be upstream in RHEL).
At times Fedora barely has the resources to stumble forward from
release to release. Adding more mandatory costs for older releases is
simply not practical or possible.
Then there is the whole "voluntary" part of volunteer. Backporting
can be difficult, time consuming, frustrating, or simply impossible.
The incentive of $$ from paying customers simply is not there.
--
Best regards,
Al mailto:al.dunsmuir@sympatico.ca
1:22 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:18:23PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Hello Matthew,
> Other distributions manage this without too much trouble, so I don't see
> it being a problem to adopt this policy.
1 word: Resources - person power, time, funding, equipment, etc.
Fedora is a free software distribution "staffed" informally by
volunteers (except for that minority of folks who may be paid to work
on Fedora as their day job).
RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those backpotrs for
free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a
component for Centos happens to be upstream in RHEL).
Debian has historically managed this. I really don't buy the argument
that security or other critical fixes are generally difficult to
backport.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
1:49 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 19:22 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:18:23PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Hello Matthew,
> > Other distributions manage this without too much trouble, so I don't see
> > it being a problem to adopt this policy.
> 1 word: Resources - person power, time, funding, equipment, etc.
>
> Fedora is a free software distribution "staffed" informally by
> volunteers (except for that minority of folks who may be paid to work
> on Fedora as their day job).
>
> RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those backpotrs for
> free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a
> component for Centos happens to be upstream in RHEL).
Debian has historically managed this. I really don't buy the argument
that security or other critical fixes are generally difficult to
backport.
Well, having had some experience with doing it, I can say it cuts both
ways. I don't code, never have, probably never will. Mostly I managed to
ship good updates for the Mandriva packages I maintained. For security
issues a minimal patch is usually provided as part of the advisory. For
bugfixes, you can *usually* make it work by extracting the specific fix
from the revision control system and applying it to the version of the
software you shipped, maybe with some little trial-and-error munging
occasionally. But sometimes, the fix doesn't apply cleanly or almost
cleanly to the older version of the code, and you have to go and find
someone from upstream - or someone who knows how to code with the time
and inclination to help - to help you sort it out.
So yeah, most of the time it's okay, but sometimes doing this _can_ be a
problem for a non-coding maintainer (and probably it's sometimes a
problem even for a coding maintainer, in rarer cases). And it is
definitely somewhat more effort than just shipping a version bump.
Shipping a version bump takes about three minutes, backporting a patch
can be an hour or two job. Of course, if you're doing your job properly,
*testing* is more lengthy for the version bump. =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:05 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those
backpotrs for
> free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a
> component for Centos happens to be upstream in RHEL).
Debian has historically managed this. I really don't buy the argument
that security or other critical fixes are generally difficult to
backport.
I thought that this is was reason why there is a package maintainer
exists in the first place, to maintain the package (not the
content):
- wraps software into rpm and pushes it to distro
- monitors new releases and makes updates
- *communicates* between fedora userspace and upstream
So in case fedora's users suffer from a security bug, the maintainer
collects the facts (what version, how many users are affected,
important details from bug reports and debugging information, etc),
talks to upstream and if the security bug is not backported, (s)he
asks upstream to do so. They probably has the best skills to do so.
I don't see how this wouldn't be everyone's interest, even from the
upstream point of view. They most likely don't want such reputation
that their software is dangerous to use.
Unless the maintainer has issues with communication and social
skills, this could very well be a problem and not that far fetched.
I wonder, how many maintainers have even sent a short email to
upstream and said:
"hello, thank you for coding this cool software with opensource
license. I'm packaging it now to Fedora, please send me
announcements etc and please don't hesitate to contact me if you
have something in mind, I'm your contact at this end".
Frankly, if you ask me, I rather take all backporting done by
someone who actually knows what he's doing. And same goes with
packaging.
What comes to KDE's "there won't be anymore bugfix releases after
new feature release" - so what? How many real security issues has
there been in history? Five? Ten? I bet those all would be
backported by upstream if community size of Fedora would really need
them. Everyone who cannot wait those couple months, can do checkout
and compile themselves.
Tuju
--
You want to throw out the baby with the bathwater! - K. Kofler
Your baby is my bathwater. I don't want the OS you're building. - J. Keating
2:59 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Juha Tuomala wrote:
What comes to KDE's "there won't be anymore bugfix
releases after
new feature release" - so what? How many real security issues has
there been in history? Five? Ten? I bet those all would be
backported by upstream if community size of Fedora would really need
them. Everyone who cannot wait those couple months, can do checkout
and compile themselves.
What about the thousands of non-security bugs? Do you not want those fixed?
All large software projects have thousands of bugs.
Kevin Kofler
3:01 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
What about the thousands of non-security bugs? Do you not want those
fixed?
All large software projects have thousands of bugs.
A major upgrade doesn't magically make thousands of bugs go away. At
best you can hope to trade some in for a new set of bugs.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
3:05 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> What comes to KDE's "there won't be anymore bugfix releases after
> new feature release" - so what? How many real security issues has
> there been in history? Five? Ten? I bet those all would be
> backported by upstream if community size of Fedora would really need
> them. Everyone who cannot wait those couple months, can do checkout
> and compile themselves.
What about the thousands of non-security bugs? Do you not want those fixed?
Well, sort of. It all depends. Not all bugs are created equal. Some are
things the developers consider 'bugs' but which the user may not; the
initial 'fix' may even constitute a regression in the user experience,
either intentionally or accidentally. Even some problems most users
would see as 'bugs' can be very disruptive to fix; the changed software
may have fixed the bug but present a different experience to the user,
who may not be expecting it.
It's all a game of semantics. If you take an aggressive enough
definition of bugs, KDE 4.0 is a 'bugfix' release.
All large software projects have thousands of bugs.
Yep - and somehow *continue* to have thousands of bugs, all the time.
Intrinsic in your argument is an admission that new releases always
cause new bugs too, otherwise surely there'd be no bugs left in KDE by
now, after all these releases?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
4:08 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> All large software projects have thousands of bugs.
Yep - and somehow *continue* to have thousands of bugs, all the time.
Intrinsic in your argument is an admission that new releases always
cause new bugs too, otherwise surely there'd be no bugs left in KDE by
now, after all these releases?
Not really. Bugs are not always discovered immediately.
In addition, not every new bug is a regression. Often, new bugs are bugs in
new features which the old version didn't have at all. In that case, the bug
doesn't actually break anything that worked before.
Kevin Kofler
7:01 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:44, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 05:44 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>>> What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to rebuild
>>> because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
>>> admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
>>>
>> Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
>> Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
>>
>
> No but it is often disruptive if ABI changes are in libraries in an
> update and we should avoid that as much as possible. This is part of
> treating Fedora as a platform instead of a loose set of packages.
How is it disruptive? Surely not because I have to rebuild the stuff I am
developing myself and have to compile very often anyway… If it's stuff
coming from a third-party repo, it's that repo's responsibility to rebuild
the package and get it out together with the Fedora update.
« Alright, today I'll be implementing feature XYZ in my Foobar program. »
[... a short hack later, testing the change...]
« Why doesn't it work? It was working fine last time I tried, what's happening »
[... an hour of debugging later...]
« $#@!%µ the Libbar librazy was updated and isn't compatible anymore.
Great, I just lost an hour trying to solve a problem in my program
when it was coming from an soname bump! Thank you (not) $distro
maintainer!!! »
I have a very short programming experience, and yet it already
happened to me. I can't imagine how little patience must remain for
those who have been facing this kind of problems for years. :-/
----------
Mathieu Bridon
7:24 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
« Alright, today I'll be implementing feature XYZ in my Foobar
program. »
[... a short hack later, testing the change...]
« Why doesn't it work? It was working fine last time I tried, what's
happening »
[... an hour of debugging later...]
« $#@!%µ the Libbar librazy was updated and isn't compatible anymore.
Great, I just lost an hour trying to solve a problem in my program
when it was coming from an soname bump! Thank you (not) $distro
maintainer!!! »
It takes you an hour to figure that out? The error message you get when
you're trying to use a library with the wrong soname is quite clear!
And the next time it happens, you know that you should just make clean; make
before checking anything else if something like this happens.
Kevin Kofler
6:25 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:14:36 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
> What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to
> rebuild because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a
> dedicated admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
It is if you are not the developer but the user.
If you want bleeding edge, ABI breaking stuff, just use rawhide.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
6:45 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:14:36 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to
> > rebuild because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a
> > dedicated admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
>
> Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
> Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
It is if you are not the developer but the user.
If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
rebuilding the package.
Kevin Kofler
6:23 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-)
You
should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
rebuilding the package.
I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems wrong.
I don't think I'm the only person who is using Fedora as a basis for
homegrown apps, if what I want isn't in Fedora (because I am creating it
locally) then I certainly will "compile software" as a Fedora user and
the case must be considered.
However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
depend on would go away, so nothing breaks.
Then the pressure is on the homegrown software guy to uplevel which will
normally be a turnkey rebuild into a repo yum knows about and this seems
acceptable to me.
-Andy
8:01 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +0000, Andy Green wrote:
However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the
homegrown
apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
depend on would go away, so nothing breaks.
Only if they're using the packaging system. While in an ideal world
everything would be packaged in Fedora, the reality is that there's
plenty of code that isn't, and users do do things like download stuff
and run ./configure; make; make install. The ones who are least likely
to know how to generate packages are the ones who are most likely to be
confused by applications suddenly breaking because of a soname bump, and
they're the ones who are going to be wary of running *any* updates
because they tend to break stuff for them.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
8:04 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
> apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
> depend on would go away, so nothing breaks.
Only if they're using the packaging system. While in an ideal world
everything would be packaged in Fedora,
In an ideal world I think everything would be available in an rpm package.
However, I do not agree that everything should be packaged in fedora. I
only say this b/c of the problem of maintenance and scale.
-sv
9:13 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
users do do things like download stuff and run ./configure; make;
make
install
Why would we even try to support that? Packaging exists for a reason.
Kevin Kofler
9:18 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:13:17PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> users do do things like download stuff and run ./configure; make; make
> install
Why would we even try to support that?
Because we don't package every piece of software in the world?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
9:39 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:13:17PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > users do do things like download stuff and run ./configure; make; make
> > install
>
> Why would we even try to support that?
Because we don't package every piece of software in the world?
That's the problem then. :-) Alternatively, that's what third-party
repositories are for. But end users should not be compiling software, at
least not in that way. (Users are of course free to modify software, that's
what Free Software is about, but the proper way to do that is to build a
modified version of the SRPM and end up with a proper package. And let's
face it, most end users will not modify their software in the first place
anyway, even if they theoretically could.)
Kevin Kofler
11:16 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/10 14:01, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
> apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
> depend on would go away, so nothing breaks.
Only if they're using the packaging system. While in an ideal world
everything would be packaged in Fedora, the reality is that there's
plenty of code that isn't, and users do do things like download stuff
Then that's the person's problem who is using a packaged OS outside the
packaging system: he can expect nothing but headaches being in stealth mode.
It seems we all agree though that it's true the update action will choke
if there are packages around that need the old libs and that's OK for
that scenario.
and run ./configure; make; make install. The ones who are least
likely
to know how to generate packages are the ones who are most likely to be
confused by applications suddenly breaking because of a soname bump, and
they're the ones who are going to be wary of running *any* updates
because they tend to break stuff for them.
That is what will happen when they upgrade to fc(n+1) anyway. And these
guys have to know enough usually to yum in a load of -devel pieces.
All that guy has to do is re-run make ; make install after the update
and he's away again. That does not sound very onerous. If there's a
big gain to be had in terms of solving impossible backport situations
then it sounds like a tradeoff that's at the least reasonable to argue.
-Andy
9:11 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Andy Green wrote:
On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
> should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
> rebuilding the package.
I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems wrong.
I don't think I'm the only person who is using Fedora as a basis for
homegrown apps, if what I want isn't in Fedora (because I am creating it
locally) then I certainly will "compile software" as a Fedora user and
the case must be considered.
Uh, please read the context of my statement!
I wrote:
Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
Simo Sorce replied:
It is if you are not the developer but the user.
And I replied:
If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-)
In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a "developer",
not
a "user", so the above sentence obviously does not apply. Instead, my
original point does (you'll be compiling your own software very often
anyway).
Kevin Kofler
11:19 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/10 15:11, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
Andy Green wrote:
> On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
>> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
>> should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
>> rebuilding the package.
>
> I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems wrong.
>
> I don't think I'm the only person who is using Fedora as a basis for
> homegrown apps, if what I want isn't in Fedora (because I am creating it
> locally) then I certainly will "compile software" as a Fedora user and
> the case must be considered.
Uh, please read the context of my statement!
I wrote:
> Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
> Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
Simo Sorce replied:
> It is if you are not the developer but the user.
And I replied:
> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-)
In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a
"developer", not
a "user", so the above sentence obviously does not apply. Instead, my
original point does (you'll be compiling your own software very often
anyway).
It's a bit of a false dichotomy because I may be developing my stuff and
using someone else's, but I take your point.
-Andy
12:06 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:19:45 +0000
Andy Green <andy(a)warmcat.com> wrote:
On 03/12/10 15:11, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> Andy Green wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>
>>> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling
>>> software. :-) You should be using some repository and that
>>> repository is responsible for rebuilding the package.
>>
>> I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems
>> wrong.
>>
>> I don't think I'm the only person who is using Fedora as a basis
>> for homegrown apps, if what I want isn't in Fedora (because I am
>> creating it locally) then I certainly will "compile software" as a
>> Fedora user and the case must be considered.
>
> Uh, please read the context of my statement!
>
> I wrote:
>> Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
>> Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
>
> Simo Sorce replied:
>> It is if you are not the developer but the user.
>
> And I replied:
>> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-)
>
> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a
> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence obviously does
not
> apply. Instead, my original point does (you'll be compiling your
> own software very often anyway).
It's a bit of a false dichotomy because I may be developing my stuff
and using someone else's, but I take your point.
You can call it a straw man, no problem calling things as they are.
I love people quoting other people slightly out of context and putting
their spin on it to make a point ...
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
12:59 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/10 18:06, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps,
you're a
>> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence obviously
does not
>> apply. Instead, my original point does (you'll be compiling your
>> own software very often anyway).
>
> It's a bit of a false dichotomy because I may be developing my stuff
> and using someone else's, but I take your point.
You can call it a straw man, no problem calling things as they are.
I love people quoting other people slightly out of context and putting
their spin on it to make a point ...
My dear Simo your IFF is malfunctioning. "I take your point" is me
agreeing that I took his words out of context when I went back and read
what he clearly quoted. Having understood his larger point, I don't
think splitting people into "developers" and "users" is a worthwhile
distinction because all developers are users of something else.
At the company I am working for this whole subject has been a matter of
great debate these last days about the best way to update our own stable
packages for our own repo on top of a Fedora basis, by focus on backport
or elevating our equivalent of rawhide into stable after thorough testing.
AFAICS the best way through it is a mixture depending on the exact
situation of each package and the divergence in the sources and libs.
If a fix we would like to have in stable is dependent on new APIs in
uplevelled libs, backporting becomes Hell given the need to retain the
old APIs for packages that don't get updated while integrating new ones
for the fix.
It pushes me towards thinking a solution by bringing in the new libs and
accepting the damage in terms of uplevelling and retesting the users of
the library can often be the right way. And that seems to be Kevin's
POV which is why I was surprised to misread what I misread.
-Andy
2:18 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:59:30 +0000
Andy Green <andy(a)warmcat.com> wrote:
On 03/12/10 18:06, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a
>>> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence
obviously does
>>> not apply. Instead, my original point does (you'll be compiling
>>> your own software very often anyway).
>>
>> It's a bit of a false dichotomy because I may be developing my
>> stuff and using someone else's, but I take your point.
>
> You can call it a straw man, no problem calling things as they are.
>
> I love people quoting other people slightly out of context and
> putting their spin on it to make a point ...
My dear Simo your IFF is malfunctioning. "I take your point" is me
agreeing that I took his words out of context when I went back and
read what he clearly quoted. Having understood his larger point, I
don't think splitting people into "developers" and "users" is a
worthwhile distinction because all developers are users of something
else.
I think we misunderstood each other on how we are referring to what.
Given the matter is completely knotted I give up commenting and
preemptively apologize to anyone that feel I said something wrong or
wrongly attributed something.
At the company I am working for this whole subject has been a matter
of great debate these last days about the best way to update our own
stable packages for our own repo on top of a Fedora basis, by focus
on backport or elevating our equivalent of rawhide into stable after
thorough testing.
In general I think that point releases are a mean to provide users with
something usable somewhat consistent and that doesn't change too much,
so they can stick with it.
The others can adventure into rawhide.
If everything turns into rawhide why are we even doing point releases
at all ? Just have rawhide and push to ""stable"" stuff once enough
karma accumulates and have a constantly rolling release with no numbers
or anything.
Needless to say I don't think a constantly rolling release helps our
users. Even developers need to have something that doesn't move too
much under your feet. Developers are users too and need a distro they
can use for most of their tasks or the will move and develop elsewhere.
Although *some* developers need bleeding edge, they are normally a
minority, and they don't need bleeding edge everything, they can easily
pick from testing or rawhide what they need, or just rebuild from sprm
themselves.
AFAICS the best way through it is a mixture depending on the exact
situation of each package and the divergence in the sources and libs.
If a fix we would like to have in stable is dependent on new APIs in
uplevelled libs, backporting becomes Hell given the need to retain
the old APIs for packages that don't get updated while integrating
new ones for the fix.
I agree with you. It is not a clear cut ban this, approve that.
But it is more a matter of tendency. The unstable repositories should
tend to upgrade often, the released stable repos shouldn't and
sometimes you have to just let a bug there and tell people to use the
newer release rather than breaking more stuff in a "stable" release to
cram in an update to fix a minor bug.
Security releases are more delicate and if necessary exceptions can be
made there, that's where rel-eng comes in.
It pushes me towards thinking a solution by bringing in the new libs
and accepting the damage in terms of uplevelling and retesting the
users of the library can often be the right way. And that seems to
be Kevin's POV which is why I was surprised to misread what I misread.
I am not sure what's Kevin POV anymore, probably he has some sort of
view of what is the target user base and which packages should be fast
movers, but I can't make it up from his emails anymore.
If the position is that the status quo is fine, I have to disagree, we
have way too many updates in F-12, so from my POV something should
change to slow down the pace a bit. Whether that should be only done
for CRITPATH first and exclude some category of software that is not
installed by default I don't know; we can discuss that.
But the current status is not good IMO.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
3:06 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Simo Sorce wrote:
I am not sure what's Kevin POV anymore, probably he has some sort
of
view of what is the target user base and which packages should be fast
movers, but I can't make it up from his emails anymore.
I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed, unless there
is a good reason NOT to push a particular new version (feature regressions,
known unfixed new bugs as found during testing, requires manual
intervention, breaks compatibility with existing user data etc.). (And of
course, if there are such reasons, the update MUST NOT be pushed. That's
what distinguishes the updates from Rawhide, and it's an important
distinction, because it defines stability from the user's point of view.)
If the position is that the status quo is fine, I have to disagree,
we
have way too many updates in F-12, so from my POV something should
change to slow down the pace a bit. Whether that should be only done
for CRITPATH first and exclude some category of software that is not
installed by default I don't know; we can discuss that.
But the current status is not good IMO.
And indeed, I do think the status quo is mostly fine! If anything, it is
sometimes too conservative (e.g. GNOME, Firefox).
Kevin Kofler
5:22 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed,
unless there
is a good reason NOT to push a particular new version (feature regressions,
known unfixed new bugs as found during testing, requires manual
intervention, breaks compatibility with existing user data etc.). (And of
course, if there are such reasons, the update MUST NOT be pushed. That's
what distinguishes the updates from Rawhide, and it's an important
distinction, because it defines stability from the user's point of view.)
Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
to.
Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
good enough reason /to/.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
5:52 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jesse Keating wrote:
Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
to.
Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
good enough reason /to/.
Right. "Fundamental point of view difference" indeed. But the former is the
point of view many of our users defend, too. :-) See e.g. the results of
Adam Williamson's poll.
Kevin Kofler
6:02 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
> push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
> to.
>
> Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
> good enough reason /to/.
Right. "Fundamental point of view difference" indeed. But the former is the
point of view many of our users defend, too. :-) See e.g. the results of
Adam Williamson's poll.
Kevin Kofler
s/many/some/. We have absolutely no scientific data that demonstrates
what any measure of our userbase defend or don't defend. What we have
is data that /some/ users prefer lots and lots of updates. We also have
data that /some/ users prefer a more conservative approach to updates to
our stable releases. We also have a vision statement from the Fedora
Board that reads to me like a vision for conservative updates to our
stable release.
While it's true that some of our users appreciate the rapid stream of
updates, we may have to lose those users, or redirect them to other
avenues to rapid updates within the Fedora project and release stream.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
6:14 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jesse Keating wrote:
While it's true that some of our users appreciate the rapid
stream of
updates, we may have to lose those users, or redirect them to other
avenues to rapid updates within the Fedora project and release stream.
And why would we want to lose a huge number, which appears to be clearly in
the majority according to the only approximation to numbers we have, of our
current users, just to implement some vision which basically amounts to
copying what all the other mainstream distributions do, giving users no
choice?
Kevin Kofler
6:35 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> While it's true that some of our users appreciate the rapid stream of
> updates, we may have to lose those users, or redirect them to other
> avenues to rapid updates within the Fedora project and release stream.
And why would we want to lose a huge number, which appears to be clearly in
the majority according to the only approximation to numbers we have, of our
current users, just to implement some vision which basically amounts to
copying what all the other mainstream distributions do, giving users no
choice?
Kevin Kofler
There is clearly no reason to continue this conversation with you Kevin.
We are just going to disagree.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
8:08 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> [...]
There is clearly no reason to continue this conversation with you Kevin.
We are just going to disagree.
That's what's really sad to me. Despite that the only "hard" evidence we
have seems to agree with what several of us have been saying - that
Fedora is distinctive for being very up to date, even in releases - it
seems FAB and others are going to choose to ignore that and change
unilaterally³ change Fedora into something we don't want.
(³from our persepctive, anyway)
For all the yelling that we don't want to listen to users, it sure seems
like you're the ones not listening. (I guess that's a tautology of
sorts. Still it's greatly disappointing that any sort of compromise
position has been shot down. By both sides, to be fair.)
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...
8:43 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
I like fedora beacause it is both up to date and stable.
I also am admin for a several non tech users - and frankly if there is
an Aunt Tilly out there using fedora she never installed it - one of us
did - and we maintain it - and we speak for Aunt Tilly.
And if you ask Aunt Tilly - certainly all -my- Aunt Tilly's - they'll
all say ask me - not her.
So this user bias is far less than some think.
Then there are those who are newish but dont have enormous experience
(cousin Bob) - they seek the experienced for help - whether in person
(frequent for me) or via forums etc.
So once again, the experienced users - those who frequent this list,
their opinions should carry more weight than the Aunt Tilly's and the
cousin Bob's.
gene
2:48 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
> > push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
> > to.
> >
> > Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
> > good enough reason /to/.
>
> Right. "Fundamental point of view difference" indeed. But the former is
the
> point of view many of our users defend, too. :-) See e.g. the results of
> Adam Williamson's poll.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
s/many/some/. We have absolutely no scientific data that demonstrates
what any measure of our userbase defend or don't defend. What we have
is data that /some/ users prefer lots and lots of updates. We also have
data that /some/ users prefer a more conservative approach to updates to
our stable releases. We also have a vision statement from the Fedora
Board that reads to me like a vision for conservative updates to our
stable release.
While it's true that some of our users appreciate the rapid stream of
updates, we may have to lose those users, or redirect them to other
avenues to rapid updates within the Fedora project and release stream.
Well, you fight since a long time for this, at least 2007. Could be
dangerous to play with that fire. Let that part of our users go
(anyways, if they have to use rawhide they can also leave, there are
better/more stable alternatives out there) and dream of catching some
of the "other distro" users. We have some of the best users out there.
testing stuff, file bug reports, dont cry around much if something
breaks *and* still using Fedora. And you want to give away all that
for some distro hoppers? Wow.
Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue? Or because we do
the same just in RPM? Some "slow-it-down-people" do really think that
a half baken X-server 1.7beta will make users of other distros go away
because they use just 1.6, or our release kernel is 2.6.31.3 and
others have 2.6.31.1 trough release-time?
Sorry, but everyone thinking that Fedora's leading edge is because of
broken/half baked techs trough release time, should use some of the
other distros just to become familiar of what he's talking of.
Other distros have even all the brand new stuff as we have, just in a
lot of third-party repos. Sometimes even with dependency hell.
That's something Fedora doesn't have (well maybe in some very rare
cases). We update that stuff trough our reliable repos. But this will
change soon if you play to hard. We might see a wild garden of repos
with deps hell out there. This somehow reminds to something.. Man, my
Alzheimer's disease hurts me sometimes..
You will never get a single user of the other distros if you dont have
anything special to offer. That's basic stuff you have to know in
every company. Be special, or be nothing. I really, really dont
understand why some people try extremely hard to train wreck Fedora.
And nobody is able to explain it.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
3:59 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
severely wrong. There are many good reasons to choose either distro. I
happen to quite like both, for different reasons. Fedora moves new
features into rawhide at a higher pace, and Ubuntu is something that I
could see a newcomer having a lot of success with. But none of that has
anything to do with what should be happening in stable Fedora releases.
the same just in RPM? Some "slow-it-down-people" do really
think that
a half baken X-server 1.7beta will make users of other distros go away
because they use just 1.6, or our release kernel is 2.6.31.3 and
others have 2.6.31.1 trough release-time?
I don't care whether some new hardware gets enabled through an update. I
would rather that happen in rawhide and the users who can't use the
hardware in the stable release have to wait an average of 3 months in
the worst case that there isn't some level of support available now. Few
other Operating Systems move at that kind of pace anyway. I do care that
regressions in the kernel, X, or some other subsystem might break things
that users who are supported are relying on, just to enable other stuff.
To me, the fear of regressions outweighs any possible other benefit.
This isn't Enterprise Linux. I don't need a support period covering the
equivalent of 14 Fedora release cycles, I am fully happy with some
considerable churn every 6 or 12 months on my desktop or laptop in the
interest of being up to date with the latest tech, but I am not happy to
have that churn be on a normal non-upgrade day when I expect my laptop
to work (and an update just before a meeting to be safe with respect to
that laptop running a presentation immediately afterward). Somewhat
shockingly, some people do use Fedora for day to day stuff.
You will never get a single user of the other distros if you dont
have
anything special to offer.
Fedora offers a higher rate of new and experimental features. Those
should be kept in rawhide *where they belong*, for 6 months, until they
have had some decent testing and are ready to be released. Users are
users, they are not guinea pigs to be experimented upon.
Jon.
4:52 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan(a)jonmasters.org> wrote:
> the same just in RPM? Some "slow-it-down-people" do
really think that
> a half baken X-server 1.7beta will make users of other distros go away
> because they use just 1.6, or our release kernel is 2.6.31.3 and
> others have 2.6.31.1 trough release-time?
I don't care whether some new hardware gets enabled through an update. I
would rather that happen in rawhide and the users who can't use the
hardware in the stable release have to wait an average of 3 months in
the worst case that there isn't some level of support available now. Few
other Operating Systems move at that kind of pace anyway. I do care that
regressions in the kernel, X, or some other subsystem might break things
that users who are supported are relying on, just to enable other stuff.
To me, the fear of regressions outweighs any possible other benefit.
Sorry but I strongly disagree here, waiting three months to be able to
use hardware is unacceptable.
Waiting for a shiny new feature is perfectly fine, but being able to
use the hardware is something completely different.
Other operating systems benefit from hardware vendors shipping drivers
with the hardware, and still even MS ships updated hardware support as
updates.
8 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan(a)jonmasters.org> wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
> from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
severely wrong.
Yes, it is exactly the only reason (well, maybe besides it's blue).
And no, nothing is wrong.
There are many good reasons to choose either distro. I
happen to quite like both, for different reasons. Fedora moves new
features into rawhide at a higher pace, and Ubuntu is something that I
could see a newcomer having a lot of success with. But none of that has
anything to do with what should be happening in stable Fedora releases.
I have had a lot of distros and i still have two on my boxen. This, my
main Laptop has Fedora (exactly because of the only reason) and my
others run openSUSE. The only difference why i have Fedora on this
laptop and contribute to Fedora is exactly the one reason i had to
choose Fedora over anything else. The reason you want to kill.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not married with Fedora, i can leave if it
doesn't fit me anymore, i sure will do since i can choose. I could run
rawhide, sure, but what's the difference then to run factory, or
cooker.
> the same just in RPM? Some "slow-it-down-people" do
really think that
> a half baken X-server 1.7beta will make users of other distros go away
> because they use just 1.6, or our release kernel is 2.6.31.3 and
> others have 2.6.31.1 trough release-time?
I don't care whether some new hardware gets enabled through an update. I
would rather that happen in rawhide and the users who can't use the
hardware in the stable release have to wait an average of 3 months in
the worst case that there isn't some level of support available now. Few
other Operating Systems move at that kind of pace anyway. I do care that
regressions in the kernel, X, or some other subsystem might break things
that users who are supported are relying on, just to enable other stuff.
To me, the fear of regressions outweighs any possible other benefit.
Well, hardware support is urgent, but drago01 answered that already eloquent.
This isn't Enterprise Linux. I don't need a support period
covering the
equivalent of 14 Fedora release cycles, I am fully happy with some
considerable churn every 6 or 12 months on my desktop or laptop in the
interest of being up to date with the latest tech, but I am not happy to
have that churn be on a normal non-upgrade day when I expect my laptop
to work (and an update just before a meeting to be safe with respect to
that laptop running a presentation immediately afterward). Somewhat
shockingly, some people do use Fedora for day to day stuff.
Ugh, what a shock, yeah it's really shocking me that you even think
about to update your box right before a presentation, but hey, to each
their own. This is my day to day stuff box as well. Though i don't cry
if something happens, but try to fix it or find a workaround. But
before the last sentence gets answered out of the context, i saw maybe
a handful of sh!t happen since Fedora 8. And none of this was really
bad, thanks to the Developers fixing it *extremely* fast.
So please stop crying people. We have some of the best developers out there.
> You will never get a single user of the other distros if you dont
have
> anything special to offer.
Fedora offers a higher rate of new and experimental features.
The typical bla bla. Sorry. But to inform you, that's exactly one of
the reasons who keep people away from Fedora. Well, that and some
boneheaded devels who think whatever it is, it is not my software.
And Fedora isn't the only inventor of stuff. I really get slowly sick
of that. Because exactly the same people who play that card, are
crying in the first place if one of those features bites them at
release time.
Those
should be kept in rawhide *where they belong*, for 6 months, until they
have had some decent testing and are ready to be released.
Do you really think you can find all of the problems of some
experimental software just because it sits in rawhide and it's waiting
to be tested from the masses? I doubt that.
Users are
users, they are not guinea pigs to be experimented upon.
If you don't want to be a guinea pig, turn your computer off and learn
to get your day to day stuff done with paper and a pen. Or use a
Enterprise Linux or a LTS version of a modern distro. You're in *any*
modern distro/OS, more or less the guinea pig. Because nobody can test
their software on any hardware and any set of software installed.
Welcome to the real world.
What you most likely want is better QA.
Sorry, again, not a single argument why Fedora should change away from
what it is.
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium
12:17 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jon Masters wrote:
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora
shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
severely wrong.
Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in the real world you chose to
ignore, yet I don't see anything wrong with it.
There are many good reasons to choose either distro. I happen to
quite
like both, for different reasons. Fedora moves new features into rawhide
at a higher pace,
That alone is not sufficient to be the most up-to-date distribution, which
is what many of our users choose us for, an aggressive post-release update
policy is also needed.
In addition, shipping new features often means shipping early versions of
new software which needs several feature updates to mature. KDE 4.0 would be
the obvious example, but there were others as well.
and Ubuntu is something that I could see a newcomer having a lot of
success with.
So let them get the newcomers and stop worrying about things like:
* our update policies being too "unstable" for newcomers,
* "simplifying" our download page for newcomers by hiding most of our
options ("Want KDE? Play hide&seek with us! Want 64-bit? Play hide&seek with
us! Want …")
etc.
I don't care whether some new hardware gets enabled through an
update. I
would rather that happen in rawhide and the users who can't use the
hardware in the stable release have to wait an average of 3 months in
the worst case that there isn't some level of support available now. Few
other Operating Systems move at that kind of pace anyway.
For those "other Operating Systems", the drivers come in a CD with the
hardware. In binary-only form and with a EULA attached, but that's what the
native drivers of those "other Operating Systems" come as as well. We are
not one of those "other Operating Systems". We need the hardware to work out
of the box.
And up to 6 months are way too long to wait to get your hardware working, by
that time they'll have chosen some other distro, maybe one which happened to
have a release schedule which aligned better with the hardware purchase
(which is pure accident), and will never care about Fedora again. Quite the
opposite: They'll always remember it as "that distro that didn't work on my
computer" and talk bad about it to all their friends.
I do care that regressions in the kernel, X, or some other subsystem
might
break things that users who are supported are relying on, just to enable
other stuff. To me, the fear of regressions outweighs any possible other
benefit.
If something regresses, there's always the old version to rollback to. If
the hardware is just not supported, there's nothing to fall back to.
This isn't Enterprise Linux. I don't need a support period
covering the
equivalent of 14 Fedora release cycles, I am fully happy with some
considerable churn every 6 or 12 months on my desktop or laptop in the
interest of being up to date with the latest tech, but I am not happy to
have that churn be on a normal non-upgrade day when I expect my laptop
to work (and an update just before a meeting to be safe with respect to
that laptop running a presentation immediately afterward). Somewhat
shockingly, some people do use Fedora for day to day stuff.
Then do your updates AFTER that presentation, not before. Where's the
problem?
Fedora offers a higher rate of new and experimental features. Those
should be kept in rawhide *where they belong*, for 6 months, until they
have had some decent testing and are ready to be released. Users are
users, they are not guinea pigs to be experimented upon.
Many of our feature updates DID go through Rawhide first. They were just
released on their own schedule, because they're nondisruptive enough to be
pushed to a stable release and because Fedora's schedule aligns very poorly
to the upstream schedule. For example, KDE 4.4 got A LOT of testing before
it was pushed.
Kevin Kofler
2:04 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 18:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
> If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
> out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
> severely wrong.
Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in the real world you chose to
ignore, yet I don't see anything wrong with it.
If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn.
If something regresses, there's always the old version to
rollback to. If
the hardware is just not supported, there's nothing to fall back to.
People who have other things to do don't have time to keep several
different updates around, and do their own QA cycle on Fedora stable
updates, before deploying them. That's what rawhide is for - I know if
my rawhide breaks I'm not relying on it anyway so I can just fix it
later on, whenever. Honestly, it sounds like you're arguing against what
I see as the value of even having stable releases.
> This isn't Enterprise Linux. I don't need a support
period covering the
> equivalent of 14 Fedora release cycles, I am fully happy with some
> considerable churn every 6 or 12 months on my desktop or laptop in the
> interest of being up to date with the latest tech, but I am not happy to
> have that churn be on a normal non-upgrade day when I expect my laptop
> to work (and an update just before a meeting to be safe with respect to
> that laptop running a presentation immediately afterward). Somewhat
> shockingly, some people do use Fedora for day to day stuff.
Then do your updates AFTER that presentation, not before. Where's the
problem?
We seem to fundamentally disagree on quality expectations. My view is
that quality means being able to do an update at any time with a
reasonable expectation that nothing will blow up in the process. I think
you might be surprised at how many users also expect this when you label
something as an "update" and offer it to them in a popup balloon.
Jon.
2:21 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jon Masters wrote:
If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all
you
are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn.
It's not just about KDE. It's also about the kernel, about applications (the
so-called "leaf packages") etc.
Kevin Kofler
3:30 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 20:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
> If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
> are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
> updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn.
It's not just about KDE. It's also about the kernel, about applications (the
so-called "leaf packages") etc.
It's just about KDE though isn't it :)
I'm done arguing now. We're just not going to agree. You keep pushing
for your rolling updates, and if you get your way I'll have to get a
second machine to test every update before I apply it to my others.
Jon.
7:09 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Dne 14.3.2010 09:59, Jon Masters napsal(a):
Somewhat shockingly, some people do use Fedora for day to day stuff.
Don't worry they will stop soon. After all (quoting one post which I am
sorry got burried somewhere down the thread leaves):
$ Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project.
$ Users are only benefitting from our (the contributors') work as a
$ side effect.
We should all think about this sentence and its consequences.
Matěj
--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
-- Andrew Lang
6:14 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:52:32 PM, you wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
> push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
> to.
>
> Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
> good enough reason /to/.
Right. "Fundamental point of view difference" indeed. But
the former is the
point of view many of our users defend, too. :-) See e.g. the results of
Adam Williamson's poll.
Kevin Kofler
I think you are reading too much into a quick poll with a binary result.
Do not assume that adventurous does not necessarily mean death-wish
leaning towards suicidal. It does not necessarily mean the same thing
for each release (by which I mean 13, 12, or 11).
Similarly, do not assume that conservative means Ubuntu's "no change
except for security fixes" policy.
In reality, there is a spectrum of risks. The survey represents two
points with no qualification (IE margin of error, explanations,
cross-correlation questions). It is better than a dart board, and
provides a flavour of how that group of folks responded to that
question. Without depth it can't legitimately be used to support
anyone's favourite position. Remember Mark Twain.
We no more want to waste time with regressions than we want to
practice free-fall skydiving into swampland without a parachute.
You totally reject *reducing* the number of updates to older supported
releases, but in worst cases those release *are* our parachutes.
The good news, is this has got a number of us end-users off our comfy
chairs and involved. We have a stake in the outcome. The bad news, is
we have opinions and even a few skills too.
Al
12:05 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/13/2010 12:22 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed, unless there
> is a good reason NOT to push a particular new version (feature regressions,
> known unfixed new bugs as found during testing, requires manual
> intervention, breaks compatibility with existing user data etc.). (And of
> course, if there are such reasons, the update MUST NOT be pushed. That's
> what distinguishes the updates from Rawhide, and it's an important
> distinction, because it defines stability from the user's point of view.)
Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
to.
Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
good enough reason /to/.
Nicely put - There are two radical positions, which both lack "common
sense" and both are impracticable.
As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
2:54 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
This is the fallacy of the middle way. it's simply not always true. If I
say I'd like to steal $100 from you, and you'd prefer me not to steal
any of your money, is the 'obvious compromise' that I steal $50 the best
solution? Just a random example; point is, a compromise is never
automatically the right solution; it can go wrong because it doesn't
manage to capture the good point of either proposal, or because one
proposal is so wrong that it's still bad even if you only have half of
it.
The second thing doesn't apply to this case, but the first certainly
could. It's not immediately obvious that a compromise between 'lots of
adventurous updates' and 'only conservative updates' would be the best
solution for anyone. After all, we sort of have a compromise right now -
some maintainers ship adventurous updates, some ship conservative - and
that doesn't seem to be making everyone happy.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
4 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/13/2010 09:54 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
This is the fallacy of the middle way. it's simply not always true.
I disagree:
fanatical radicalism is naive and will always will always
lead to failure.
Just a random example; point is, a compromise is never
automatically the right solution;
Right, a compromise is a compromise ... it will
not taste everybody and
will always be somewhat suboptimal wrt. some aspects ... such is life.
With regard to packaging:
* Backporting might be simple in some cases, but it might not be
possible or uneffective in others.
* For some cases, "preventive pushing packages" is a suitable strategy
to prevent security risks and bugs, in others this is not applicable.
* In some cases deliberately breaking SONAMEs is a tolerable policy, in
others it is not.
* Some distributions are suitable for some use-cases, but are not in others.
...
The key is to balance the trade-offs in individual cases.
Ralf
3:35 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/11/2010 11:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
>> especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
>> in a stable release.
>
> If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought to be,
> we will take care of rebuilding it. Otherwise, whoever built it (some third-
> party repository or the user him/herself) is responsible for rebuilding it.
> This has always worked fine, I don't see the problem.
What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to rebuild
because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
It's a disaster if you're relying on a third-party compiled program
for your Internet connectivity. Imagine it: one morning you update,
then the connection breaks, then you can't get to the Internet to find
out how to get things working again.
Andrew.
9:14 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Andrew Haley wrote:
It's a disaster if you're relying on a third-party compiled
program
for your Internet connectivity. Imagine it: one morning you update,
then the connection breaks, then you can't get to the Internet to find
out how to get things working again.
And why would we want to support that?
Kevin Kofler
9:38 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 03:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
> It's a disaster if you're relying on a third-party compiled program
> for your Internet connectivity. Imagine it: one morning you update,
> then the connection breaks, then you can't get to the Internet to find
> out how to get things working again.
And why would we want to support that?
Because we don't despise our users. I don't, anyway.
Andrew.
9:41 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Andrew Haley wrote:
Because we don't despise our users. I don't, anyway.
If we don't despise our users, we shouldn't let them use crap like third-
party connectivity software which isn't even packaged properly. :-)
Kevin Kofler
11:53 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Hello Kevin,
On Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:41:53 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Because we don't despise our users. I don't, anyway.
If we don't despise our users, we shouldn't let them use crap
like third-
party connectivity software which isn't even packaged properly. :-)
Kevin,
Put bluntly, it is not your system. You didn't pay for it, and you are
not responsible for providing the time and effort to maintain it. You
are supplying software, for free, that they may choose to use.
You don't have the right to prevent anyone from using anything they
damn well please... even KDE. If they have a need to run third-party
software it is outside of your area of control. Deal with it.
Once of the reasons it is called free software is that folks are free
(as in freedom) to do what they want with it. That includes making
mistakes because they do something wrong or ill advised.
Similarly, they don't have the right to demand that you drop
everything and fix a problem of their own making. They can request
that you fix legitimate problems within your packages, but are subject
to your ability and choice to do so.
Al
5:41 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:47:03PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
> especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
> in a stable release.
If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought to be,
we will take care of rebuilding it. Otherwise, whoever built it (some third-
party repository or the user him/herself) is responsible for rebuilding it.
This has always worked fine, I don't see the problem.
You don't see a problem with breaking someone's application just because
they've installed an update to a stable release of Fedora? It's
obviously fine to do so when upgrading between releases, but within a
release it's just gratuitously irritating.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
6:15 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You don't see a problem with breaking someone's application
just because
they've installed an update to a stable release of Fedora? It's
obviously fine to do so when upgrading between releases, but within a
release it's just gratuitously irritating.
The application is not broken if whoever built it does his/her job. It's not
like there's no notification about soname bumps (when done right; I know
some people do not follow procedures, but then that's the problem, not the
soname bump).
Kevin Kofler
8:07 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:15:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You don't see a problem with breaking someone's application just because
> they've installed an update to a stable release of Fedora? It's
> obviously fine to do so when upgrading between releases, but within a
> release it's just gratuitously irritating.
The application is not broken if whoever built it does his/her job. It's not
like there's no notification about soname bumps (when done right; I know
some people do not follow procedures, but then that's the problem, not the
soname bump).
If the software is not maintained within Fedora, there's no notification
of soname bumps.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
9:39 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
If the software is not maintained within Fedora, there's no
notification
of soname bumps.
There is, soname bumps are supposed to be announced on this public list.
Kevin Kofler
8:04 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If the software is not maintained within Fedora, there's no notification
> of soname bumps.
There is, soname bumps are supposed to be announced on this public list.
A list that is targetted at developers of Fedora. If people aren't
maintaining software within Fedora, there's no obvious reason for them
to be subscribed to it.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
9:14 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
A list that is targetted at developers of Fedora. If people
aren't
maintaining software within Fedora, there's no obvious reason for them
to be subscribed to it.
There is: finding out about soname bumps. :-)
Kevin Kofler
7:26 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You don't see a problem with breaking someone's application
just because
they've installed an update to a stable release of Fedora? It's
obviously fine to do so when upgrading between releases, but within a
release it's just gratuitously irritating.
On F13, upgrade gnome-panel to version in updates-testing and you'll get
panel crashes almost immediately when tryign to start an application or
just logout of gnome. Soo, if we were using rawhide, almost every gnome
user would be having crashes soon as they upgrade (minus the ones that
watch for breakage first before they upgrade). Anyway, perfect example
to test first (cuz maintainer might have accidentily missed something),
and not just update straight to the branch.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
1:48 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Dne 12.3.2010 02:26, Mike Chambers napsal(a):
On F13, upgrade gnome-panel to version in updates-testing and
you'll get
When was F13 released? Oh, it wasn't, so it is just glorified Rawhide
still? And you complain about it being broken (especially in its
updates-*testing*)?
BTW, this is the reason why I disagree with the way how we did unfrozen
Rawhide. Instead of getting even more free version of Rawhide, we've got
one more make update and similar non-sense.
Matěj
--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
-- Andrew Lang
9:52 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 08:48 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
When was F13 released? Oh, it wasn't, so it is just glorified Rawhide
still? And you complain about it being broken (especially in its
updates-*testing*)?
F-13 Branched is /not/ a glorified Rawhide. It's attitudes like that
which have led to continual slips in our releases and poor release
quality. F-13 has passed the Feature Freeze and is in bugfix/polish
mode. This is why we've instituted peer review on builds proposed to
land in F13, by way of updates-testing. It has already discovered and
prevented a number of bad builds from entering the release making it
much easier to consume branched on a daily bases and work towards
polishing it up for the release.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
12:42 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:48:23AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 12.3.2010 02:26, Mike Chambers napsal(a):
> On F13, upgrade gnome-panel to version in updates-testing and you'll get
When was F13 released? Oh, it wasn't, so it is just glorified Rawhide
still? And you complain about it being broken (especially in its
updates-*testing*)?
BTW, this is the reason why I disagree with the way how we did unfrozen
Rawhide. Instead of getting even more free version of Rawhide, we've got
one more make update and similar non-sense.
Hmmm... so are we or are we not claiming that the pre-release branch is
supposed to be a valid thing for people to be running if they want
a semi-rolling flavour of Fedora? Note that I'm not claiming that you
personally are claiming that. Just that I'd be willing to try running F+1
for a cycle or two if, in fact, it's expected to be the place our users who
want a semi-rolling experience are expected to go.
If it's "just a glorified Rawhide" then there's really no point in
telling
people to run it... they'll just get disgusted with Fedora's stability and
leave.
-Toshio
12:59 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:42:18 -0500
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:48:23AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 12.3.2010 02:26, Mike Chambers napsal(a):
> > On F13, upgrade gnome-panel to version in updates-testing and
> > you'll get
>
> When was F13 released? Oh, it wasn't, so it is just glorified
> Rawhide still? And you complain about it being broken (especially
> in its updates-*testing*)?
>
> BTW, this is the reason why I disagree with the way how we did
> unfrozen Rawhide. Instead of getting even more free version of
> Rawhide, we've got one more make update and similar non-sense.
>
Hmmm... so are we or are we not claiming that the pre-release branch
is supposed to be a valid thing for people to be running if they want
a semi-rolling flavour of Fedora? Note that I'm not claiming that you
personally are claiming that. Just that I'd be willing to try
running F+1 for a cycle or two if, in fact, it's expected to be the
place our users who want a semi-rolling experience are expected to go.
If it's "just a glorified Rawhide" then there's really no point in
telling people to run it... they'll just get disgusted with Fedora's
stability and leave.
Which is what is starting to happen with current Fedora "stable"
branches given the intolerable amount of updates being crammed in.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
6:57 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> writes:
If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought
to be,
we will take care of rebuilding it. Otherwise, whoever built it (some third-
party repository or the user him/herself) is responsible for rebuilding it.
This has always worked fine, I don't see the problem.
This is pretty harsh for in-house applications for companies. We'll have
to watch the updates, rebuild the in-house applications, and deploy them
to the internal repository on the day that they go into Fedora. Not the
day before or the day after, because that would break dependencies.
You can argue that such places should not accept unfiltered Fedora
updates at all but run their own update servers.
You can also argue that such places should pick a different
distribution, because Fedora can't cater to everyone.
Just please make sure the policy is announced so that we can act
sensibly. Especially if the policy is "Gnome libraries won't require
rebuilds during a release, whereas KDE libraries might".
/Benny
9:21 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal
Benny Amorsen wrote:
Just please make sure the policy is announced so that we can act
sensibly. Especially if the policy is "Gnome libraries won't require
rebuilds during a release, whereas KDE libraries might".
The current policy (or lack of a formal policy, if you prefer) boils down
to: "any library might theoretically require rebuilds during a release,
though in practice this is extremely unlikely to happen for libraries with
many dependent packages". Of course neither GNOME nor KDE can be upgraded to
a version which requires rebuilding everything. On the other hand, libraries
such as kdegraphics' libkipi which only a few apps depend on have indeed
been bumped. (For KDE, I refer you to upstream's ABI policy, which basically
says that kdelibs and kdepimlibs are guaranteed to keep backwards binary
compatibility throughout the whole lifetime of KDE 4, but libraries provided
by application modules (i.e. all the other modules) are only guaranteed to
keep backwards binary compatibility within a 4.n series.)
Kevin Kofler
10:38 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/11/2010 05:47 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> That might be harsh for some soname updates.
>
> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
> especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
> in a stable release.
If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought
to be, we will take care of rebuilding it.
There are so many things wrong with this premise, it's hard to formulate an
email. The first is that your ideal world scenario here isn't very realistic -
there are, for example, programs which have intentionally been removed from
Fedora, and for good reasons. That doesn't mean nobody has rebuilt them and
wants them to stay working.
It also implies that we're okay shipping updates of whole dep chains for any
bug whatsoever in a stable release. This is a gigantic problem! Many people
have complained about this - it uses much more bandwidth and storage, even with
deltas (in fact, significantly more storage with deltas), and for very little
appreciable benefit.
This is a bad plan.
--
Peter
When in doubt, debug-on-entry the function you least suspect has
anything to do with something.
2:06 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Peter Jones wrote:
It also implies that we're okay shipping updates of whole dep
chains for
any bug whatsoever in a stable release. This is a gigantic problem! Many
people have complained about this - it uses much more bandwidth and
storage, even with deltas (in fact, significantly more storage with
deltas), and for very little appreciable benefit.
Without upgrading whole dep chains, important updates such as libmtp updates
adding new hardware support would be impossible. These always come as
grouped updates with rebuilds of Amarok and a couple other things. But the
maintainers do try to coordinate to reduce the amount of grouped updates,
e.g. libmtp and other such libraries such as libnjb often get updated
together, and they frequently come together with some new version of Amarok
as well.
Kevin Kofler
2:13 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
> It also implies that we're okay shipping updates of whole dep chains for
> any bug whatsoever in a stable release. This is a gigantic problem! Many
> people have complained about this - it uses much more bandwidth and
> storage, even with deltas (in fact, significantly more storage with
> deltas), and for very little appreciable benefit.
Without upgrading whole dep chains, important updates such as libmtp updates
adding new hardware support would be impossible. These always come as
grouped updates with rebuilds of Amarok and a couple other things. But the
maintainers do try to coordinate to reduce the amount of grouped updates,
e.g. libmtp and other such libraries such as libnjb often get updated
together, and they frequently come together with some new version of Amarok
as well.
It may be a good idea to synchronize with RPM Fusion too, to avoid
things like this:
http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-video-for-you-at-least-not-today....
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
3:15 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Adam Williamson wrote:
It may be a good idea to synchronize with RPM Fusion too, to avoid
things like this:
http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-video-for-you-at-least-not-today....
We do synchronize with RPM Fusion, and RPM Fusion has been aware of the need to
upgrade kdenlive in particular since before Qt 4.6 went out to stable. The
reason it took that long has all to do with issues internal to RPM Fusion:
* the maintainer intended to orphan the package, a new maintainer volunteered,
but ownership is STILL not transferred after over 3 weeks!
* build system issues prevented a successful kdenlive build for several days,
* the package is now sitting in testing instead of getting pushed to stable.
The maintainer who intends to pick up kdenlive asked for the update to go to
stable after a day of testing given the urgency, but 3 days have passed since
the testing push and it's still not in stable, despite some other packages
having been pushed since, so I guess the request has been lost. There is
nothing like Bodhi in RPM Fusion, so expedited stable pushes have to be
requested and handled manually.
Unfortunately, there isn't much we could have done better on the Fedora end.
:-(
Kevin Kofler
3:51 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It may be a good idea to synchronize with RPM Fusion too, to avoid
> things like this:
>
> http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-video-for-you-at-least-not-today....
We do synchronize with RPM Fusion, and RPM Fusion has been aware of the need to
upgrade kdenlive in particular since before Qt 4.6 went out to stable. The
reason it took that long has all to do with issues internal to RPM Fusion:
<snip>
Ah, thanks for that info, wasn't aware. I should really read the Fusion
list more carefully =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:12 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Paul Wouters <paul(a)xelerance.com> said:
That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long
time
to wait on new functionality after upstream released it.
People keep tossing out "six months". How often is it that a new Fedora
release comes out right before a new upstream, and that upstream is not
already in testing in Fedora?
Why not handle those cases similar to how GNOME and Firefox (and IIRC
OpenOffice.org?) have been handled in the past, where a test/RC release
was in Fedora leading up to the Fedora release, and the "final" upstream
release is pushed as an update (if/when needed)? Going from test/RC to
final usuaully isn't going to involve major changes (soname bumps, UI
changes, etc.) and so should be an acceptable update to everybody.
You'd be looking at a typical peak of around 5 months between upstream
release and Fedora release, with an average of more like 2-3 months,
which is a lot different from the 6 months that keeps being repeated as
the waiting time for something new.
For example (just an example - please don't take this as picking on
KDE!), KDE 4.4.0 was released on February 9, and F13 is scheduled for
May 11. That's a 3 month gap, not 6 months. In my opinion, I don't
think it is entirely unreasonable to wait 3 months for a major new
release.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
4:45 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Paul Wouters <paul(a)xelerance.com> said:
> That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long time
> to wait on new functionality after upstream released it.
People keep tossing out "six months". How often is it that a new Fedora
release comes out right before a new upstream, and that upstream is not
already in testing in Fedora?
The average is 3 months which is just as unreasonable.
For example (just an example - please don't take this as picking
on
KDE!), KDE 4.4.0 was released on February 9, and F13 is scheduled for
May 11. That's a 3 month gap, not 6 months. In my opinion, I don't
think it is entirely unreasonable to wait 3 months for a major new
release.
I disagree. Sorry.
Kevin Kofler
4:50 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 11/03/10 22:45, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Paul Wouters<paul(a)xelerance.com> said:
>
>> That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long time
>> to wait on new functionality after upstream released it.
>>
> People keep tossing out "six months". How often is it that a new Fedora
> release comes out right before a new upstream, and that upstream is not
> already in testing in Fedora?
>
The average is 3 months which is just as unreasonable.
> For example (just an example - please don't take this as picking on
> KDE!), KDE 4.4.0 was released on February 9, and F13 is scheduled for
> May 11. That's a 3 month gap, not 6 months. In my opinion, I don't
> think it is entirely unreasonable to wait 3 months for a major new
> release.
>
I disagree. Sorry.
Kevin Kofler
+1
5:39 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Paul Wouters <paul(a)xelerance.com> said:
>> That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long time
>> to wait on new functionality after upstream released it.
>
> People keep tossing out "six months". How often is it that a new Fedora
> release comes out right before a new upstream, and that upstream is not
> already in testing in Fedora?
The average is 3 months which is just as unreasonable.
Why? What do you consider a reasonable interval?
> For example (just an example - please don't take this as
picking on
> KDE!), KDE 4.4.0 was released on February 9, and F13 is scheduled for
> May 11. That's a 3 month gap, not 6 months. In my opinion, I don't
> think it is entirely unreasonable to wait 3 months for a major new
> release.
I disagree. Sorry.
Can you at least give some reasons?
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
6:18 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
> The average is 3 months which is just as unreasonable.
Why? What do you consider a reasonable interval?
The time it actually takes to test the update. I.e. at most 3 weeks.
> > For example (just an example - please don't take this as
picking on
> > KDE!), KDE 4.4.0 was released on February 9, and F13 is scheduled for
> > May 11. That's a 3 month gap, not 6 months. In my opinion, I don't
> > think it is entirely unreasonable to wait 3 months for a major new
> > release.
>
> I disagree. Sorry.
Can you at least give some reasons?
Once 4.n+1.0 is out, 4.n.x is no longer updated, there are no further bugfix
releases, any bugs in it will stay unfixed. And there are also nice new
features in the new version.
Kevin Kofler
12:25 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/11/2010 07:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Once 4.n+1.0 is out, 4.n.x is no longer updated, there are no further
bugfix
releases, any bugs in it will stay unfixed. And there are also nice new
features in the new version.
So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwilling or
unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
--
Peter
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
2:04 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Peter Jones wrote:
So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being
unwilling or
unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
KDE upstream fixes hundreds of bugs each month. It is just plain impossible
to backport all their bugfixes with the manpower we, or any other existing
distro, have (and no, our GNOME maintainers don't have that kind of manpower
either, so please don't bring up that argument), and even if we miraculously
managed to do it anyway, it would lead to us shipping something completely
untested outside of Fedora, so it'd potentially be much more broken than the
newer stable release series.
Kevin Kofler
2:21 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 03:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
> So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwilling or
> unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
KDE upstream fixes hundreds of bugs each month. It is just plain impossible
to backport all their bugfixes with the manpower we, or any other existing
distro, have (and no, our GNOME maintainers don't have that kind of manpower
either, so please don't bring up that argument)
And yet gnome package maintainers do manage to fix bugs without backporting
all of gnome.
, and even if we miraculously managed to do it anyway, it would lead
to us shipping something completely untested outside of Fedora, so
it'd potentially be much more broken than the newer stable release
series.
And they don't seem to have severe breakage because of it.
--
Peter
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
4:14 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Peter Jones wrote:
And yet gnome package maintainers do manage to fix bugs without
backporting all of gnome.
They don't fix all the bugs the new GNOME release series fixes. Most of
those bugs, if they don't happen to be fixed by one of the bugfix releases,
just stay unfixed until the next Fedora release (or longer).
Another important point is that we align to the GNOME schedule, whereas the
KDE schedule is cross-aligned. So you can often just upgrade to the new
Fedora to get the new GNOME, whereas for KDE you'd have to wait months. It
is impossible to align our schedule to all upstream projects simultaneously.
(And no, upstream projects won't all align to the same schedule, no matter
how much Mark Shuttleworth pushes for that.)
Kevin Kofler
5:49 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/12/2010 11:25 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 03/11/2010 07:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Once 4.n+1.0 is out, 4.n.x is no longer updated, there are no further bugfix
> releases, any bugs in it will stay unfixed. And there are also nice new
> features in the new version.
So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwilling or
unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
Umm, is this really the standard we expect to hold package maintainers
to? I expect them to be able to communicate the bug to upstream and if
upstream fixes it provide that fix if it is not too disruptive. Now I
have fixed bugs in my packages, and that is a nice thing for a
maintainer to be able to do, but I'm not sure we are ready to make that
a requirement.
At least, that is how I interpret the phrase "actually fix bugs".
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
2:36 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 20:12, Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net> wrote:
Why not handle those cases similar to how GNOME and Firefox (and
IIRC
OpenOffice.org?) have been handled in the past, where a test/RC release
was in Fedora leading up to the Fedora release, and the "final" upstream
release is pushed as an update (if/when needed)? Going from test/RC to
final usuaully isn't going to involve major changes (soname bumps, UI
changes, etc.) and so should be an acceptable update to everybody.
I think that this is the wrong way to go. Whenever this happened there
were a lot of complains from the users and sometimes from upstream.
It basically says we make the releases less stable by using a not
fully tested and finished upstream version, just so that we can have
more stable updates.
I like the idea of stable updates and just tracking upstream in
rawhide, but lets start to make the Fedora releases more stable first.
Otherwise everyone will push the newest broken alpha into rawhide just
before release, in the hope to patch it up with "stable" updates
afterwards.
A six month cycle is not a long time and having test/beta/RC versions
in there just for marketing doesn't make sense.
Christof
6:56 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
You'd be looking at a typical peak of around 5 months between upstream
release and Fedora release, with an average of more like 2-3 months,
which is a lot different from the 6 months that keeps being repeated as
the waiting time for something new.
I don't think this calculation is right. Assuming the conservative
updates perception, we can't have a drastic change in F-13 right now.
A drastic change will have to wait until F-14, which is in November.
So the peak time as of now is 8 months. I think 6 months is a
reasonably good estimate for an average.
Orcan
1:56 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should be
> done. Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
> another round of discussions (not this meeting).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
Here is the link. I'm going to start a new thread here.
Feedback welcome.
Should there be a caveat for cases like I'm dealing with right now --
pidgin-sipe 1.9.0 provides both security fixes and new features
compared to pidgin-sipe 1.8.1.
If these guidelines are to be followed, then I both should (security
fixes) and shouldn't (new features) be pushing this release into F12
and F11.
(And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
such massive effort).
Regards,
--
McGill University IT Security
Konstantin Ryabitsev
Montréal, Québec
2:40 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:56 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
Should there be a caveat for cases like I'm dealing with right
now --
pidgin-sipe 1.9.0 provides both security fixes and new features
compared to pidgin-sipe 1.8.1.
If these guidelines are to be followed, then I both should (security
fixes) and shouldn't (new features) be pushing this release into F12
and F11.
(And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
such massive effort).
If you're going by my page, you'll note that
Generally it is expected that these types of bugs can be fixed without
introducing new major upstream releases. When this is not the case the
update should be considered a new upstream version and treated
accordingly.
And then if you read the new upstream versions you'll see:
For new upstream versions of packages which provide new features, but
don't just fix critical bugs, an update can still be issued, but it is
vital that the new upstream version does not regress or drastically
change a user's experience.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
2:59 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:56:05 -0500
Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
(And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to
1.8.1" then I'm
afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
such massive effort).
You can always find a co-maintainer skilled enough to help you in such
rare cases... just saying.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
7:33 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 03:59:46PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:56:05 -0500
Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> (And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
> afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
> such massive effort).
You can always find a co-maintainer skilled enough to help you in such
rare cases... just saying.
The Fedora Objectives page[1] says: "In general, we prefer to move to a
newer version for updates rather than backport fixes". I know this is
what we're talking about, but it's not like we lack existing policy on
this - the idea that there's no direction to help maintainers do the
same things is not correct.
Ewan
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives
7:18 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thursday 11 March 2010 09:59:46 pm Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:56:05 -0500
Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> (And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
> afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
> such massive effort).
You can always find a co-maintainer skilled enough to help you in such
rare cases... just saying.
Backporting could be very dangerous, actually I think it can bring much more
regressions. And sometimes it's not even possible. If you want strict policy
for Fedora, then you need same strict policies for upstream ;-)
Jaroslav
Simo.
4:59 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
Here is the link. I'm going to start a new thread here.
Thanks for drafting this. Would it make sense to look at the API &
coupling dimension?
When a package provides an API/ABI that other software (packaged or
not!) depends on, the likelyhood of breakage and impact are much
higher.
IME, when the update affects a large set of interdependent, tightly
coupled packages (and external sw) (ie: KDE) the chances of a smooth
upgrade are vanishingly small, unless you spend QA efforts similar to
an OS release.
At the opposite end of the spectrum "Leaf" packages -- (ie: gnote),
are less likely to break, and less disruptive when it happens.
cheers,
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
5:06 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 17:59 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Jesse Keating
<jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
>
> Here is the link. I'm going to start a new thread here.
Thanks for drafting this. Would it make sense to look at the API &
coupling dimension?
When a package provides an API/ABI that other software (packaged or
not!) depends on, the likelyhood of breakage and impact are much
higher.
IME, when the update affects a large set of interdependent, tightly
coupled packages (and external sw) (ie: KDE) the chances of a smooth
upgrade are vanishingly small, unless you spend QA efforts similar to
an OS release.
At the opposite end of the spectrum "Leaf" packages -- (ie: gnote),
are less likely to break, and less disruptive when it happens.
I had thought about these things, but they didn't strike me as a high
level update type. And for the leaf node packages, when they do break
it's not as less disruptive as you might think. Leaf node packages
exist for a reason, they are likely very important to somebody, and if
that breaks, that's going to be a very big issue for that somebody.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
5:13 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Jesse Keating wrote:
I had thought about these things, but they didn't strike me as a
high
level update type. And for the leaf node packages, when they do break
it's not as less disruptive as you might think. Leaf node packages
exist for a reason, they are likely very important to somebody, and if
that breaks, that's going to be a very big issue for that somebody.
But if they're outdated, that can also be a big issue. Some leaf packages
are under heavy development, so users don't want to run old versions, nor do
upstream developers want them to.
Kevin Kofler
5:42 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> said:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> I had thought about these things, but they didn't strike me as a high
> level update type. And for the leaf node packages, when they do break
> it's not as less disruptive as you might think. Leaf node packages
> exist for a reason, they are likely very important to somebody, and if
> that breaks, that's going to be a very big issue for that somebody.
But if they're outdated, that can also be a big issue. Some leaf packages
are under heavy development, so users don't want to run old versions, nor do
upstream developers want them to.
Developers can't always get what they want. Just because Fedora updates
to upstream's release-of-the-day doesn't mean Ubuntu, SuSE, etc. have
updated (so hopefully upstream is still paying attention to older
releases).
Most reasonable upstreams I have worked with fully understand that not
everybody is running yesterday's release and will work with you if you
find a problem with an older release. If an upstream can't handle that,
I would say that is the upstream's problem, not Fedora's.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
6:26 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Chris Adams wrote:
Developers can't always get what they want. Just because Fedora
updates
to upstream's release-of-the-day doesn't mean Ubuntu, SuSE, etc. have
updated (so hopefully upstream is still paying attention to older
releases).
It is (especially for leaf packages) much more likely they're going to say
one or more of:
* "screw you, use a sane distro" (and we lose the user),
* "just build our tarball from source" (with the result that the user ends
up with an unpackaged mess in /usr/local which grows like mold),
* "screw the distro packages, use ours" (and this leads us to the "third-
party package chaos" problem, which is characterized by low-quality
packages, dependency hell, inter-repository compatibility issues etc.).
Most reasonable upstreams I have worked with fully understand that
not
everybody is running yesterday's release and will work with you if you
find a problem with an older release. If an upstream can't handle that,
I would say that is the upstream's problem, not Fedora's.
Upstream cannot go back in time and magically fix a bug in an old release.
The bug is often already fixed in the current release, so the solution is
for us to package the current release. And no, backporting fixes is often
not practical.
Kevin Kofler
6:56 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:26:26AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
> Developers can't always get what they want. Just because Fedora updates
> to upstream's release-of-the-day doesn't mean Ubuntu, SuSE, etc. have
> updated (so hopefully upstream is still paying attention to older
> releases).
It is (especially for leaf packages) much more likely they're going to say
one or more of:
* "screw you, use a sane distro" (and we lose the user),
* "just build our tarball from source" (with the result that the user ends
up with an unpackaged mess in /usr/local which grows like mold),
* "screw the distro packages, use ours" (and this leads us to the "third-
party package chaos" problem, which is characterized by low-quality
packages, dependency hell, inter-repository compatibility issues etc.).
> Most reasonable upstreams I have worked with fully understand that not
> everybody is running yesterday's release and will work with you if you
> find a problem with an older release. If an upstream can't handle that,
> I would say that is the upstream's problem, not Fedora's.
Upstream cannot go back in time and magically fix a bug in an old release.
The bug is often already fixed in the current release, so the solution is
for us to package the current release. And no, backporting fixes is often
not practical.
I know that backporting fixes is often not practical, especially if there is
a lot of code churn upstream. How often this is the case depends on the
project of course. Do you have any cost estimates on that though? (honest
question, I'm not involved with KDE so I can't even guess)
As in, on average what are the costs of leaving a bug in vs. the cost of
updating to a new release. I noticed that there's a number of bugs that only
affect a subset of users that (often) can work around the issue. So the cost
- while high to a particular user - may be quite limited.
Updating to a new release will affect _every_ user and given that software
is imperfect it's likely that existing bugs will just be replaced by new,
different bugs. So on the one side you have the cost of having known bugs,
on the other side you have the benefit of fixing (some) bugs but the cost of
new bugs and a potential change in the user experience. Which one is higher
than the other one?
Cheers,
Peter
1 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:56:07AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
As in, on average what are the costs of leaving a bug in vs. the cost
of
updating to a new release. I noticed that there's a number of bugs that only
affect a subset of users that (often) can work around the issue. So the cost
- while high to a particular user - may be quite limited.
Updating to a new release will affect _every_ user and given that software
is imperfect it's likely that existing bugs will just be replaced by new,
different bugs. So on the one side you have the cost of having known bugs,
on the other side you have the benefit of fixing (some) bugs but the cost of
new bugs and a potential change in the user experience. Which one is higher
than the other one?
I think you're hitting the nail on the head with this question. However,
I'm afraid that the answer depends on the class of user. Some users want to
have their old bugs fixed ASAP and are willing to tolerate some regressions
as long as those regressions are in turn fixed. Other users are willing to
work around a known bug as long as they don't have to learn about new bugs
when an update comes along.
Except for a few people's proposals (dledford, adamw, jreznik, lmacken,
dmalcolm) most of the proposals are weighting one of these viewpoints over
the other which is not a very good way to build a community.
-Toshio
1:39 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I think you're hitting the nail on the head with this question.
However,
I'm afraid that the answer depends on the class of user. Some users want to
have their old bugs fixed ASAP and are willing to tolerate some regressions
as long as those regressions are in turn fixed. Other users are willing to
work around a known bug as long as they don't have to learn about new bugs
when an update comes along.
Except for a few people's proposals (dledford, adamw, jreznik, lmacken,
dmalcolm) most of the proposals are weighting one of these viewpoints over
the other which is not a very good way to build a community.
I think it is a fine way to BUILD a community - but it's building a
community that matches a certain demographic.
It's like marketing features, if your features can be handled for a
particular demographic then that's the community you build.
I think what you're saying is "it's not a very good way to build a
community of EVERYONE" but it is not obvious to me that:
1. we want everyone
2. we can come up with a way to target everyone.
-sv
1:59 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 14:00 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Except for a few people's proposals (dledford, adamw, jreznik,
lmacken,
dmalcolm) most of the proposals are weighting one of these viewpoints over
the other which is not a very good way to build a community.
Actually I think it's a fine way to build a community. A community of
like minded individuals who want to produce something for an intended
audience, and a community of like minded consumers who wish to consume
that which you are building.
Instead what we have now is fiefdoms of different strategies for
producing updates and consumers who are getting mixed results from
different parts of the operating system. Nobody is getting what they
really want, either every package reasonably updated everywhere all the
time, nor a conservative stable and bugfix only update approach. So
nobody is truly happy, which I think is the real terrible way to build a
community.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
3:11 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On 03/11/2010 07:26 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Upstream cannot go back in time and magically fix a bug in an old
release.
As an upstream maintainer, I wind up doing exactly this *constantly*.
--
Peter
I number the Linux folks among my personal heroes.
-- Donald Knuth
4:23 p.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
Peter Jones wrote:
On 03/11/2010 07:26 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Upstream cannot go back in time and magically fix a bug in an old
> release.
As an upstream maintainer, I wind up doing exactly this *constantly*.
No you don't. (I don't believe you invented time travel, sorry. ;-) ) You
can only release a NEW release with this fixed. Which by a strict enough
update policy (e.g. Debian stable's) already counts as a "new upstream
release", even if you only made that one particular change.
And in addition, many upstreams don't work that way. Sure, they will release
a new release with this fixed, but it will come from the current trunk which
also has many other changes. Many upstream projects do not use branches, all
releases come from the trunk, and it is totally impractical to make a fixed
version of every past release ever made. Not to mention that they will also
see no reason to do that: in fact, they will expect the packager to also
ship those other changes, as they are all there for a reason, e.g. because
they fix other bugs.
Kevin Kofler
7:56 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thursday 11 March 2010 07:36:34 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should be
> done. Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
> another round of discussions (not this meeting).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
Here is the link. I'm going to start a new thread here.
Feedback welcome.
How does this proposal go with upgrades? I think stable updates + upgrades are
tight together. Are we going to be more conservative in new releases too?
Extend "stable" release life time? LTS?
Jaroslav
9:54 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 14:56 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
How does this proposal go with upgrades? I think stable updates +
upgrades are
tight together. Are we going to be more conservative in new releases too?
Extend "stable" release life time? LTS?
Fedora needs to be free to innovate, and that means we need to be free
to introduce substantial changes between our releases, so no, this
policy does not apply to changes between say F-13 and F-14, only to
changes /to/ F-13 once it has been released.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
11:35 a.m.
New subject: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Friday 12 March 2010 04:54:43 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 14:56 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> How does this proposal go with upgrades? I think stable updates +
> upgrades are tight together. Are we going to be more conservative in new
> releases too? Extend "stable" release life time? LTS?
Fedora needs to be free to innovate, and that means we need to be free
to introduce substantial changes between our releases, so no, this
policy does not apply to changes between say F-13 and F-14, only to
changes /to/ F-13 once it has been released.
But this is real issue - very conservative release updates with very
aggressive upgrades every 6 months, forcing users to upgrade every (and only)
1 year. You can't decouple updates/upgrades. That's why I'd like to see
"slowing down" approach of updates.
Jaroslav
5154
days inactive
5159
days old
255 comments
56 participants
participants (56)
-
Adam Williamson -
Al Dunsmuir -
Andrew Haley -
Andy Green -
Ankur Sinha -
Benny Amorsen -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Adams -
Christof Damian -
drago01 -
Eric Sandeen -
Ewan Mac Mahon -
Frank Murphy -
Genes MailLists -
Haïkel Guémar -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Jesse Keating -
Jochen Schmitt -
Jon Masters -
Jonathan Dieter -
Josh Stone -
Juha Tuomala -
Kevin Kofler -
Konstantin Ryabitsev -
Martin Langhoff -
Mary Ellen Foster -
Matej Cepl -
Mathieu Bridon -
Matt Domsch -
Matthew Garrett -
Matthew Miller -
Matthew Woehlke -
Matthias Clasen -
Michael Schwendt -
Mike Chambers -
Mike McGrath -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Orion Poplawski -
Oscar Bacho -
Paul Wouters -
Peter Boy -
Peter Hutterer -
Peter Jones -
psmith -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter -
Seth Vidal -
Simo Sorce -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Terry Barnaby -
Thomas Janssen -
Tom Callaway -
Toshio Kuratomi -
Ville-Pekka Vainio