On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
> I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
* I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to ship updates
fixing more annoyances, including updates to later 4.0.x releases. Yes, I
used F9 with 4.0.x myself, one one machine.
Well, I believe most people would
disagree with you here. Many of KDE
user switched temporarily to other DEs because of this, or stayed with
F8...
* KDE 4.0 wasn't an update at all! It was what was shipped with a
NEW
release. We intentionally DID NOT update F8 to KDE 4.x. Not 4.0, not 4.1,
not ever. This kind of changes is exactly what we have releases for and why
rolling release models are not usable for production.
KDE 4.0 wasn't feature
complete, I would call it at the very best Beta
of KDE4. And yet you pushed it to *stable* release. Yes, during the
development time, not as an update, but still have done it.
* Version updates, the very ones you complain about, brought that 4.0
up to
4.1 and later 4.2. I used F9 on my main machine from F8's EOL up to F9's
EOL. F9 with KDE 4.2 (and IMHO even 4.1) was rock solid, actually one of the
stablest Fedoras I used. (For example, F10 had issues with my hardware's
ALSA driver affecting PulseAudio, F11 with the graphics driver.)
Well, the problem was that you pushed KDE 4.0 in the first place. Given
the state of things, you had very *strong* reasons to update to KDE 4.1
and 4.2. And yes, pulseaudio was IMHO pushed one release earlier than
would be ideal as well...
> I like that Fedora is bleeding edge in rawhide, recieves good
deal of
> testing *before* release and is more or less conservative when it comes
> to important stuff after release. That way we can provide our users with
> *stable* but sufficiently modern stuff (in many areas even a few months
> ahead of other distros). And I think the new policy aligns pretty well
> with this.
KDE 4.0 was a result of "Fedora [being] bleeding edge in rawhide", this was
NOT pushed "after release". And it DID receive a "good deal of testing
*before* release". We were very hard at work fixing showstoppers resp.
getting them fixed upstream, it would have been much worse otherwise! If you
had compared the pre-4.0 prerelease which was initially imported into
Rawhide with the 4.0.3 + patches we shipped in F9, you'd have noticed that
there were worlds of differences in reliability and glitch-freeness! A lot
of the bugs that were fixed were reported by Rawhide or kde-redhat unstable
users, some of them were fixed by Fedora developers.
Well, KDE 4.0 was an example of what should have been reverted during
the stabilization pre-release phase (similar to what's now happening
with gnome 3.0, although with gnome it's the upstream that is sane
enough to not release it yet). It was not ready for prime time, IMHO.
And as outlined above, I believe that 4.1 and 4.2 were necessary
updates, precisely the type where there are strong reasons to push them
despite the big number of changes (but require *a lot* of testing).
The NON-conservative updates are what brought 4.1 and 4.2 to the F9
release,
resolving many of the complaints users had about 4.0.
No, given the situation, these were semi-conservative. They fixed
zillions of regressions and bugs...
Martin