Hi Everyone,
For anyone interested in testing stuff, Fedora Unity has another Re-Spin that we need people to check items off a test-matrix for, to verify there is no regression in this Re-Spin -compared to the original Fedora 8 release media.
If you are interested, join the Fedora Unity websites and drop a message on the test-team mailing list so we can give you access to the files and the matrix, or join us in #fedora-unity on FreeNode.
Looking forward to your contributions and feedback,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Test Matrix: http://spins.fedoraunity.org/Members/Southern_Gentleman/20071218f8testmatrix
Fedora Unity Website: http:://fedoraunity.org
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Hi Everyone,
For anyone interested in testing stuff, Fedora Unity has another Re-Spin that we need people to check items off a test-matrix for, to verify there is no regression in this Re-Spin -compared to the original Fedora 8 release media.
If you are interested, join the Fedora Unity websites and drop a message on the test-team mailing list so we can give you access to the files and the matrix, or join us in #fedora-unity on FreeNode.
Looking forward to your contributions and feedback,
Would you consider opening access to test releases to everyone? I doubt a huge number is going to jump on to download test releases anyway so the bandwidth constraints shouldn't be too high. If users have to jump through hoops to get access to test releases, you might loose very value feedback.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Hi Everyone,
For anyone interested in testing stuff, Fedora Unity has another Re-Spin that we need people to check items off a test-matrix for, to verify there is no regression in this Re-Spin -compared to the original Fedora 8 release media.
If you are interested, join the Fedora Unity websites and drop a message on the test-team mailing list so we can give you access to the files and the matrix, or join us in #fedora-unity on FreeNode.
Looking forward to your contributions and feedback,
Would you consider opening access to test releases to everyone? I doubt a huge number is going to jump on to download test releases anyway so the bandwidth constraints shouldn't be too high. If users have to jump through hoops to get access to test releases, you might loose very value feedback.
I'm thinking jigdo would be pretty important too. I can imagine some trying some variants, if they don't have to download 3-4 Gbytes for each.
Rahul Sundaram said the following on 12/19/2007 05:25 AM Pacific Time:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Hi Everyone,
For anyone interested in testing stuff, Fedora Unity has another Re-Spin that we need people to check items off a test-matrix for, to verify there is no regression in this Re-Spin -compared to the original Fedora 8 release media.
If you are interested, join the Fedora Unity websites and drop a message on the test-team mailing list so we can give you access to the files and the matrix, or join us in #fedora-unity on FreeNode.
Looking forward to your contributions and feedback,
Would you consider opening access to test releases to everyone? I doubt a huge number is going to jump on to download test releases anyway so the bandwidth constraints shouldn't be too high. If users have to jump through hoops to get access to test releases, you might loose very value feedback.
Rahul
What hoops? It was easy :)
1) I went to #fedora-unity on IRC and said I wanted to help --everyone is friendly and very helpful 2) They changed the ACL on my fedora unity account to access the jigdo template 3) Using my own local cache of files I built the latest F7 DVD ISO and test F8 DVD ISO w/o any problems. 4) Been installing away using xen instances. 5) The test matrix is in a plone instance that was super easy to edit... no crazy wiki editing.
I think it is great they advertised here.
John
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Poelstra wrote:
What hoops? It was easy :)
I am sure it was but public access is going to be the easiest. I am not sure limiting access is necessary here.
Rahul
Well our rule is "we do not release crap to the public." If we open the downloads of our Re-Spins with out testing perhaps one might suggest "Why test them at all?" As it is we have about 40 people signed up as testers, of those only 4 or 5 have ever given us any feedback.
If we drop testing all together and a Re-Spin is released with some glaring bugs it would be a black eye on Unity's Re-Spin project and also on Fedora in general IMO. It is bad enough when bugs slip through unreported in the official releases.
So I guess it comes down to "We will release no Re-Spin before it's time!" As long as my reputation and the reputation of the Unity Project is on the line, we will continue to test and limit access to the untested images to those who ask for it, making an implied promise to us to help test.
-- Robert 'Bob' Jensen http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BobJensen Fedora Unity Project http://fedoraunity.org/ KC0WYC http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/AmateurRadio
Once upon a time, Robert 'Bob' Jensen bob@fedoraunity.org said:
So I guess it comes down to "We will release no Re-Spin before it's time!" As long as my reputation and the reputation of the Unity Project is on the line, we will continue to test and limit access to the untested images to those who ask for it, making an implied promise to us to help test.
That's kind of an odd position, considering you are talking about rebuilds of a project that is developed in the open.
Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Poelstra wrote:
What hoops? It was easy :)
I am sure it was but public access is going to be the easiest. I am not sure limiting access is necessary here.
Rahul
Well our rule is "we do not release crap to the public." If we open the downloads of our Re-Spins with out testing perhaps one might suggest "Why test them at all?" As it is we have about 40 people signed up as testers, of those only 4 or 5 have ever given us any feedback.
If we drop testing all together and a Re-Spin is released with some glaring bugs it would be a black eye on Unity's Re-Spin project and also on Fedora in general IMO. It is bad enough when bugs slip through unreported in the official releases.
Other projects, Fedora included, have an open beta program. What makes you different?
Anyone who wants to run the latest Ubuntu can get it thusly: rsync --times --partial --perms --copy-links --times --block-size=$((6*1024)) --stats rsync://cdimage.ubuntu.com/cdimage/kubuntu/daily/current/*i386*.iso
I'm sure it often doesn't install; getting it is really easy.
So is getting rawhide - my IAP mirrors it (just as well too, I say).
Getting Debian's bleeding edge is simple too.
What is so hard about saying, "This is likely crap. Take it or leave it?"
Hi all,
in reply to some comments and ideas posted in this thread here's a couple of reasons why we do what we do the way we do it.
We do not, unlike the Fedora Project, release beta or testing Re-Spins only to get the feedback we need to come up with a final Re-Spin we could release to the public, which makes the need for or shape of a testing process very much different then for Fedora itself. It is the exact same Re-Spin now in testing that we release; The location of a link to the data is what distinguishes this Re-Spin in testing from others being released and out in the open.
Besides, we do not have feature or development freeze periods, which makes our jobs so-and-so much more difficult. We take a snapshot of what is in a release and updates tree and go with that. I'm sure you appreciate the major issues this could potentially introduce in freshly built installation media. Were we to try and fix things in actual code and commit patches and the like, we would fit better in a FixSIG in the Fedora Project itself. Instead, we try to compose off what has been fixed "upstream" -which is basically us, again-, a newly created set of installation media that enables people to install and use Fedora 8.
We are not building a distribution, we're rebuilding it. We're not upstream for the distribution itself: Anyone using a Fedora Unity Re-Spin can still join #fedora and ask questions or log bugs on RHBZ, sorta speak. That makes it an awkward situation. We use what is in "upstream", rebuild what upstream built and release it under the same name as upstream, but we are not on the receiving end of bugs. That calls for a certain amount of caution in getting out what we are getting out.
So far we've not been able to tempt upstream to do it themselves or mix it with their processes, which would potentially open up some gates and might help us getting stuff done. Not that it is a problem or anything, I don't think we should get that mixed up. So far, I think we've been doing a good job, but doing what we do doesn't mean we can do it without having some kind of guarantee we are not damaging ourselves (which to me includes you, the Fedora community as well as Fedora Unity group of Fedora community members).
The method we currently use for testing and releasing Re-Spins obliges us to test a Re-Spin as soon as we compose a Re-Spin and in order to be able to withdraw the Re-Spin -should it have regression compared to the official release, we need to not release it to the public immediately (regardless of it being a "test" or "final" release). Bear in mind that "not releasing to the public" here does not mean we apply access lists or require you to register. More on that later.
These Re-Spins are so very much affiliated with the Fedora Project, by both our audience as well as many of our own, and as such I think that besides Unity's reputation potentially being damaged should we release bad products, so would the Fedora Project's. Mind that it is Fedora Unity as a group of concerned Fedora community members that is currently one of few (it not the only one) party that gets to release this media still carrying the Fedora brand. I think we're earned that position and we should do everything in our power to prevent that from going south in any way. The Fedora Project's Free Media program in fact distributes our Re-Spins to those who request it.
So, before we make announcements and release anything to the public we ensure there is no regression compared to the originally released installation media. That's a good thing, I hope you agree there.
For your information, these last couple of weeks we released and canceled 4 Re-Spins, and released another. I wouldn't want Google to pick up on these. I blog about what happens, try and get people to join our testing process. I'm sure all these people know what it is we do and what it is they can expect. Unlike someone suggested earlier, I'm not in favor of announcing "This is likely crap, take it of leave it" and it fail on anyone.
So, what I've done these last couple of weeks is Re-Spin, distribute, back-port fixes, dig up bug numbers and contacted people in private that could potentially confirm or deny our Re-Spin having fixed particular issues. Most of these people did not have to register or join the test-team. But I was sure they knew they were taking a chance, and that they were giving me the feedback I needed to fix whatever I did not fix yet. I will do everything in my power to prevent John Doe getting a bad impression of Fedora, or Fedora Unity for that matter, just because we release to the public untested Re-Spins, and John thinks he got the latest and greatest. I'm sure you see a point there.
Now, if there's any other way we could prevent crappy test-releases hitting the public yet still having the testing releases out in the public, let me know how you think we should arrange that.
Thank you in advance,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Given that updates do rarely harm to a release, wouldn't it be simpler to set upsomething like a cron job for creating automatic respins from what is availableat a certain moment without any warranty for it? Ubuntu does release daily images which either work or not. You know it and youdecide to take it or not. Unity spins used to be released quite scarcely, and this was not optimal from a user's point of view. Regular snapshots could even be tagged based on user feedback in order to labelbad ones, but again this should rarely happen anyway. ~jf
Joachim Frieben wrote:
Given that updates do rarely harm to a release, wouldn't it be simpler to set upsomething like a cron job for creating automatic respins from what is availableat a certain moment without any warranty for it? Ubuntu does release daily images which either work or not. You know it and youdecide to take it or not. Unity spins used to be released quite scarcely, and this was not optimal from a user's point of view. Regular snapshots could even be tagged based on user feedback in order to labelbad ones, but again this should rarely happen anyway. ~jf
Contrary to what you suggest; updates usually manage to break something in a release, when the installer is being rebuilt with those updates. We've seen it happen again and again.
Daily spins regardless of whether they work or not might be suitable to some extend, but I'd suggest anyone interested in that does the following:
yum -y install revisor pungi
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Joachim Frieben wrote:
Given that updates do rarely harm to a release, wouldn't it be simpler to set upsomething like a cron job for creating automatic respins from what is availableat a certain moment without any warranty for it? Ubuntu does release daily images which either work or not. You know it and youdecide to take it or not. Unity spins used to be released quite scarcely, and this was not optimal from a user's point of view. Regular snapshots could even be tagged based on user feedback in order to labelbad ones, but again this should rarely happen anyway. ~jf
Contrary to what you suggest; updates usually manage to break something in a release, when the installer is being rebuilt with those updates. We've seen it happen again and again.
Let me see, did you say you've had 40 sign up for testing and only five provide feedback (that's a pretty good rate of response btw)?
I wouldn't say that what you are doing right now is working really well.
I suggest that 1. You fix the URL in your sig 2. When you make an announcement such as the one we're discussing right now, you include a para about the project and why I'd want to try it. 3. You rethink your website. I read the front page and couldn't figure from its content what you do. "bring unity to the Community?" I'd not noticed anything more than the usual amount of discord here, maybe less. No memorable flamewars (unless in threads I've ignored) since the emergence of F8. Is there some disunity I've missed?
Give some examples of problems you've actually addressed. You might be providing solutions, but if you don't address something that I see as a real problem, I'm not interested.
In http://fedoraunity.org/news-archives/fedora-8-everything-spin-released you should explain why one might want it. Seriously, I don't know what's different about Fedora Everything compared with the standard Fedora. Assuming I actually do want Fedora Everything, how is your DVD better than downloading the bits I want at 1.2 Mbytes/sec from my IAP's mirror where it's not charged against my download quotas.
btw I'm glad to note the use of jigdo, if your announcement lead to my deciding I gotta have it, presumably I can fill the template with more local packages.
4. Don't be so precious about getting it right all the time; a fedora respin that doesn't go through an extensive beta program of its own is never going to be better than Fedora, and three of the eight continuing threads in my view of the fedora users' list suggest F8 is broken, two failures after software updates and one install failure.
On 2007/12/23 10:14 (GMT+0900) John Summerfield apparently typed:
never going to be better than Fedora, and three of the eight continuing threads in my view of the fedora users' list suggest F8 is broken, two failures after software updates and one install failure.
Dunno if the one install failure thread refers to the one I started "F8 install failure again & again" or not, but just in case it is, I'd count it as two, not one. I tried 10 times on one system and succeeded only by cloning F7 and then doing yum upgrade. Since then, I've tried again on a second system mentioned in that thread. I can't get F7, F8 or Rawhide as far as software installation in any of them, though the system had no problem with Mandriva 2008 or SUSE Factory installation. It also happily runs cloned partitions of SUSE 9.2, OS/2 & Knoppix.
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:14:36 +0900, John Summerfield debian@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Let me see, did you say you've had 40 sign up for testing and only five provide feedback (that's a pretty good rate of response btw)?
Note that they need specific things checked off and you you have the same hardware (architecure) as two other people that beat you to the test matrix, then you aren't going to provide feedback.
In my case I want to use their installer updates for my custom Games Spin and won't have direct feedback. Because I want my spin ready by Christmas Eve, I won't get to testing their spin for a while assuming there is a test that hasn't already been done that I can reasonably do.
btw I'm glad to note the use of jigdo, if your announcement lead to my deciding I gotta have it, presumably I can fill the template with more local packages.
There is an issue with using jigdo and referring to an Updates repo. Things disappear from Updates repos over time. They need to make a fallback location to get the rpms that drop out of Updates over time or their templates will break.
- Don't be so precious about getting it right all the time; a fedora
respin that doesn't go through an extensive beta program of its own is never going to be better than Fedora, and three of the eight continuing threads in my view of the fedora users' list suggest F8 is broken, two failures after software updates and one install failure.
I'd rather see them take a different tack. I would like to see them get access to get updates done to Anaconda and other installer related packages in already released versions. And then maintain kickstart samples for various types of spins and provide good documentation on how to make them.
It seems odd to me that they don't just publish stuff openly on their web site (with disclaimers that they feel are appropiate). They aren't really secretive about things though. When I asked for access to things they were very helpful.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
- Don't be so precious about getting it right all the time; a fedora
respin that doesn't go through an extensive beta program of its own is never going to be better than Fedora, and three of the eight continuing threads in my view of the fedora users' list suggest F8 is broken, two failures after software updates and one install failure.
I'd rather see them take a different tack. I would like to see them get access to get updates done to Anaconda and other installer related packages in already released versions. And then maintain kickstart samples for various types of spins and provide good documentation on how to make them.
Yes, being able to get the updates out via normal channels would be great! It's Fedora policy to not release updates for anaconda, and this time anaconda does need an update released for anyone who wants to compose installation media compatible with i586 hardware.
It seems odd to me that they don't just publish stuff openly on their web site (with disclaimers that they feel are appropiate). They aren't really secretive about things though. When I asked for access to things they were very helpful.
It isn't really that odd... We shouldn't all be publishing and releasing fixes to F8 stock anaconda and diffuse in that way... The fix is in upstream anaconda, they just won't release it as an update. This concerns me, but that doesn't make it any different. I'll not withhold the fixes or built (Source-) RPMs from anyone though; they are in the Re-Spin too (along with the sources).
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
It isn't really that odd... We shouldn't all be publishing and releasing fixes to F8 stock anaconda and diffuse in that way... The fix is in upstream anaconda, they just won't release it as an update. This concerns me, but that doesn't make it any different. I'll not withhold the fixes or built (Source-) RPMs from anyone though; they are in the Re-Spin too (along with the sources).
Could you make just that Anaconda (srpm) package available in a plain http/ftp space? I have been discussing a games spin update with rel-eng and we might take advantage of the work already done here.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
It isn't really that odd... We shouldn't all be publishing and releasing fixes to F8 stock anaconda and diffuse in that way... The fix is in upstream anaconda, they just won't release it as an update. This concerns me, but that doesn't make it any different. I'll not withhold the fixes or built (Source-) RPMs from anyone though; they are in the Re-Spin too (along with the sources).
Could you make just that Anaconda (srpm) package available in a plain http/ftp space? I have been discussing a games spin update with rel-eng and we might take advantage of the work already done here.
The back-ported fix only concerns genuine Installation Media that should be compatible with i586 hardware. With "genuine Installation Media" I mean the 'classic' DVD or CD Set. This does not apply to Live Media or it's installation procedure and should thus not be used.
Nonetheless -should it do anything different in the "Live Media being used as Installation Media" department -look at upstream anaconda and tell them to release an update.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
To use at your own risk;
John Summerfield wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Joachim Frieben wrote:
Given that updates do rarely harm to a release, wouldn't it be simpler to set upsomething like a cron job for creating automatic respins from what is availableat a certain moment without any warranty for it? Ubuntu does release daily images which either work or not. You know it and youdecide to take it or not. Unity spins used to be released quite scarcely, and this was not optimal from a user's point of view. Regular snapshots could even be tagged based on user feedback in order to labelbad ones, but again this should rarely happen anyway. ~jf
Contrary to what you suggest; updates usually manage to break something in a release, when the installer is being rebuilt with those updates. We've seen it happen again and again.
Let me see, did you say you've had 40 sign up for testing and only five provide feedback (that's a pretty good rate of response btw)?
I wouldn't say that what you are doing right now is working really well.
Please log a bug at http://bugs.fedoraunity.org or Bugzilla, make sure to assign it to me.
I suggest that
- You fix the URL in your sig
I'm sorry, I don't have any signature in my email at all, what URL are you referring to?
- When you make an announcement such as the one we're discussing right
now, you include a para about the project and why I'd want to try it.
It wasn't really an announcement but I see what you mean. The announcement sent out yesterday I think does a better job.
- You rethink your website. I read the front page and couldn't figure
from its content what you do. "bring unity to the Community?" I'd not noticed anything more than the usual amount of discord here, maybe less. No memorable flamewars (unless in threads I've ignored) since the emergence of F8. Is there some disunity I've missed?
I do hope you didn't just read that part and walked away, as I think the rest of that page does explain what we mean with unity, other then the suggested disunity. Suggestions are welcome though ;-)
Give some examples of problems you've actually addressed. You might be providing solutions, but if you don't address something that I see as a real problem, I'm not interested.
I think the examples are in the news-archives; http://fedoraunity.org/news/ (mind that it only goes back to F7 re-spins as we lost a couple of hard drives since we started with FC5 respins and livecd's)
In http://fedoraunity.org/news-archives/fedora-8-everything-spin-released you should explain why one might want it. Seriously, I don't know what's different about Fedora Everything compared with the standard Fedora.
Read the referred message on the Fedora Advisory Board mailing list. I'm not sure how you could miss what an Everything spin is. Besides, the Everything spin is the answer to a pretty well formulated question, not the once-in-a-lifetime offer someone makes you; I don't have to sell it to people who don't know what it is, instead people that know what it is, now know where to get it.
Assuming I actually do want Fedora Everything, how is your DVD better than downloading the bits I want at 1.2 Mbytes/sec from my IAP's mirror where it's not charged against my download quotas.
The Everything spin isn't any better, seriously. In fact, other then the amount of packages it isn't any different from the release either, in any way. We just so happen to be able to do it and release it, and we did because it was requested so-and-so many times.
btw I'm glad to note the use of jigdo, if your announcement lead to my deciding I gotta have it, presumably I can fill the template with more local packages.
Local packages, yes. Packages different from the ones we composed the templates with, no, I'm sorry. You could also use your IAP's mirror entirely, or a local archiving mirror such as the one I have at home and in the office.
- Don't be so precious about getting it right all the time; a fedora
respin that doesn't go through an extensive beta program of its own is never going to be better than Fedora, and three of the eight continuing threads in my view of the fedora users' list suggest F8 is broken, two failures after software updates and one install failure.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. We are being precious about getting it right for a couple of very good reasons which I'm sure you're not seeing. Let me just say that what we do here (getting it right and all that) goes a long, long way.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Poelstra wrote:
What hoops? It was easy :)
I am sure it was but public access is going to be the easiest. I am not sure limiting access is necessary here.
We are not limiting access to the actual data, we merely do not make publicly available the location and require you to register in order to get the location so that we can make sure you also have the appropriate access to also edit the page that collects the feedback.
Anyone interested -and I do mean anyone-, gets the access, or gets the location. I've spend this entire month letting people know in private where to find fixes for the issues they have with the original media. Give us some credit here, like we're getting from the ones that allow us to release Fedora with all it's trademarks these last two-and-a-half years.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Fedora Unity Founder
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Poelstra wrote:
What hoops? It was easy :)
I am sure it was but public access is going to be the easiest. I am not sure limiting access is necessary here.
We are not limiting access to the actual data, we merely do not make publicly available the location and require you to register in order to get the location so that we can make sure you also have the appropriate access to also edit the page that collects the feedback.
Anyone interested -and I do mean anyone-, gets the access, or gets the location. I've spend this entire month letting people know in private where to find fixes for the issues they have with the original media. Give us some credit here, like we're getting from the ones that allow us to release Fedora with all it's trademarks these last two-and-a-half years.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Fedora Unity Founder
I'll give you credit. The whole team.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can complain about getting something for nothing that someone else worked so hard to make.
- --
David
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 18:55:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Would you consider opening access to test releases to everyone? I doubt a huge number is going to jump on to download test releases anyway so the bandwidth constraints shouldn't be too high. If users have to jump through hoops to get access to test releases, you might loose very value feedback.
I have also asked them about getting access to what they use to build the new iso's. Presumably it's just a kickstart file and an updates.img file with installer images. But that's a lot smaller download and could allow me to do the rest on my own. In particular I want to respin the games live dvd with an updated installer and give away a few at Christmas.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 18:55:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Would you consider opening access to test releases to everyone? I doubt a huge number is going to jump on to download test releases anyway so the bandwidth constraints shouldn't be too high. If users have to jump through hoops to get access to test releases, you might loose very value feedback.
I have also asked them about getting access to what they use to build the new iso's. Presumably it's just a kickstart file and an updates.img file with installer images. But that's a lot smaller download and could allow me to do the rest on my own. In particular I want to respin the games live dvd with an updated installer and give away a few at Christmas.
The updates.img, updated anaconda or kickstart file has nothing to do with a Games Live DVD though.
In order to re-spin that I'd recommend you use livecd-creator against the appropriate kickstart in /usr/share/livecd-tools
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Adams -
David -
Felix Miata -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Joachim Frieben -
John Poelstra -
John Summerfield -
Rahul Sundaram -
Robert 'Bob' Jensen