New bodhi release in production

[Julian Sikorski]

W dniu 14.08.2010 00:12, Kevin Fenzi pisze:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
> Sven Lankes <sven at lank.es> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
>>> oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing
>>> things differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are
>>> either more or less neutral or positive towards this new change?
>>
>> I don't think that this about the KDE SIG at all.
>>
>> Not everyone is as passionate (or stubborn) as Kevin.
> 
> I agree. 
> 
>> Most fedorians I talk to are watching all the discussions to see if
>> the fedora that is currently being formed with all the changes that
>> are happening is still a distribution that they're comfortable
>> contributing to. And as the only way to get heard is to fuel a
>> flamewar on fedora-devel they just stay silent.
> 
> I think the flamewars are making people think this is a bigger deal
> than it really is. 
>  
>>> [...] I'm for more testing and more conservative update policy in
>>> general in stable branches.
>>
>> I don't oppose the ongoing changes in general but still - when I read
>> through fesco meeting logs I am often disappointed by the amount of
>> politics going on and more than once I wished that FESCO as a whole
>> would grow a pair.
> 
> Can you expand on that? I'm not sure what you mean... 
> 
>> I for one have decided that I'm going to stop contributing if the
>> 'Stable Update Vision' is going to be implemented as currently
>> discussed. If the powers that be are going to stop maintainers from
>> issuing updates that are not security or bugfix updates then fedora
>> will have turned into a distro that I'm not interested in.
> 
> Bring your concerns to the Board that issued the vision statement? 
> 
> I personally think the "just security and bugfixes" is too strong. 
> I am going to try and push for an exceptions process that takes into
> account upstreams that don't release in a way thats compatible with
> fedora's release cycle. 
> 
> I hope you won't be hasty and will try and work with whatever framework
> we end up with and help us adjust it. 
> 
> kevin
> 
One should also keep in mind that asking maintainers to backport
bugfixes effectively raises the bar for being one.
While some large projects (firefox, gnome) maintain older branches and
issue fixes to them, the vast majority of smaller projects just leave
the old releases out cold, requiring the maintainer to do all the work
which could be simply avoided by tracking upstream. I, for one, have
next to none coding skills and I'm pretty sure I won't be able to
backport bugfixes if the code paths diverge too much.
Why can't we just leave that up to maintainers whether an update can be
introduced smoothly enough to a released fedora? One size fits all will
basically make us rhel with a more frequent release cycle.
Also, how often was a huge breakage introduced by kde sig? They track
upstream closely, and how does that work out?

Julian