Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William Jon McCann william.jon.mccann@gmail.com Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:02:47 -0400 Subject: Updates next steps To: Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hey folks,
We discussed this a bit on IRC yesterday but I wanted to bring it up on the list too. (here McCann refers to the Desktop list)
Now that we have rough consensus that we should try to limit the volume of "pointless" updates, what is next?
I propose we look at two things right away:
1. Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in stable releases
2. Establish norms or rules that limit the types of changes in stable releases to ensure the releases remain stable
A concrete example of the kind of thing that I think we should try to avoid: Two days ago I installed updates for F12 (over a hundred random updates) then yesterday I noticed a lot more udpates (40ish) that included an update for vala 0.8.0 with the description "Update to new major release 0.8.0".
Longer term, I'd like to see a more comprehensive plan similar to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience but we probably need to work towards that incrementally.
Thoughts? What is the best way to accomplish these two things?
Jon
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:11:53 -0500 charles zeitler wrote:
Thoughts? What is the best way to accomplish these two things?
How about just disabling the stupid applet that so frenetically wants to nag you about updating, and only updating manually when you feel like it? Works for me, and I don't get constantly nagged about updates (heck, I do the same thing on Windows boxes as well :-).
Hi:
- Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in
stable releases
Do not create client policy on the server side - it is way to restrictive and wont satisfy the client needs of many.
And, not using the full bandwidth is very suboptimal. (Like a 30 minute lawn watering, where the water company limits your water to 2 minutes of water then off for 1 hour .. :-)
Any 'limiting' of updates ( to weekly or whatever frequenccy) should be done at the client side - if you want to update weekly - go ahead - but let me update when I choose to, be it daily, monthly or every 3.2 days.
Enhance packagekit to offer update on scheduling if it doesn't already do that - or set it to download but not update ... or whatever makes you happy like using cron.
- Establish norms or rules that limit the types of changes in stable
releases to ensure the releases remain stable
These are largely up to the maintainer and there was discussion about improving quality, testing etc - that is a healthy focus. However again, Fedora users broadly like the way things happen (not all but broadly - for some the lags in some packages from upstream are way too long already - for others the rapid updates of key packages is a huge improvement in functionality and efficiency of human resources over back-porting fixes (security or otehrwise).
If you are looking for the fedora equivalent of ubuntu lts - you wont find it - the closest, would be centos or ubuntu lts ;-)
If you want to pitch for a Fedora LTS - I suspect you'll find a lovely following - not from the desktop users - but from the server side.
However, this discussion, along with rolling releases happens now and again ... and we are in much the same place today.
Thoughts? What is the best way to accomplish these two things?
My view - dont.
You're treeing up the wrong bark ...I for one dont want to accomplish your goals as they are undesirable.
gene
On Friday 23 April 2010 06:51 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
Enhance packagekit to offer update on scheduling if it doesn't already do that - or set it to download but not update ... or whatever makes you happy like using cron.
I think PackageKit already does that. :)
You're treeing up the wrong bark ...I for one dont want to accomplish your goals as they are undesirable.
Nice 1. ;)
gene
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 20:11 -0500, charles zeitler wrote:
I propose we look at two things right away:
- Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in
stable releases
This was brought up, here, a few weeks back, and rightly shot down in flames for being a bad thing.
If there's a working update for something I have, I want it straight away. I don't want it delayed to suit some *dumb* rule.
I do my updates when I want to, and not automatically. If you want your updates run to a schedule, then that's what *you* should be doing, client-side.
Currently, server load will be randomly spread. But if everyone did their updates on the first of the month, or every Sunday morning, then the server would have a very uneven load. Perhaps one that was overwhelming.
Microsoft has doing this delaying tactic with update releasing for years, and has pissed off no end of people for doing so. Learn from other people's mistakes, don't copy them.
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 20:11 -0500, charles zeitler wrote:
Thoughts? What is the best way to accomplish these two things?
The best way is to leave it alone. Let the user decide when he wants to update. I can't see what problem this is supposed to be the answer to. If the Package Update thing is causing difficulties, either fix it or just use yum (which is what I do). Don't impose this "solution" on every Fedora user because part of the touchy-feely GUI doesn't work properly.
poc
Agreed. If I want updates, let me have whatever's available when I look. However, give me the option to schedule the update check.
That is, I get to decide when and how to handle updates. You (the maintainers and packagers) just keep pushing them into the pipeline.
On 04/23/2010 08:51 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
Enhance packagekit to offer update on scheduling if it doesn't already do that - or set it to download but not update ... or whatever makes you happy like using cron.
On 4/24/2010 11:23 AM, Steven Stern wrote:
Agreed. If I want updates, let me have whatever's available when I look. However, give me the option to schedule the update check.
That is, I get to decide when and how to handle updates. You (the maintainers and packagers) just keep pushing them into the pipeline.
How is this different from the way PackageKit works now?
On 04/23/2010 08:51 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
Enhance packagekit to offer update on scheduling if it doesn't already do that - or set it to download but not update ... or whatever makes you happy like using cron.
-
Charles Zeitler -
David -
Genes MailLists -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
SternData -
Suvayu Ali -
Tim -
Tom Horsley