On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 17:30:14 -0600,
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
> > > Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It takes days for updates to be distribute
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 17:30:14 -0600,
Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
> > Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
> > > nothing for that importan
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
> > nothing for that important power-user of app 'A', who would find a problem
> > as soon as he *would* t
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
> nothing for that important power-user of app 'A', who would find a problem
> as soon as he *would* try out a test-update.
Some mirrors. Others have stuff
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:39:02PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 23:47 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > to how these numbers have changed in a week. I hope then everyone from
> > the QA SIG is using the script to report feedback, so it will be save to
> > say that an update was
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 23:52 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:46:34 -0800, Adam wrote:
>
> > Ah. You're looking at it on a kind of micro level; 'how can I tell this
> > package has been tested?'
>
> Exactly. Because I don't like to act on assumptions.
>
> And "zero feedback
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 23:47 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:46:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Ah. You're looking at it on a kind of micro level; 'how can I tell this
> > package has been tested?'
>
> For a package maintainer it is especially interesting, whether the
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:46:34 -0800, Adam wrote:
> Ah. You're looking at it on a kind of micro level; 'how can I tell this
> package has been tested?'
Exactly. Because I don't like to act on assumptions.
And "zero feedback" is only an indicator for "doesn't break badly", if
there are N>1 testers
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:46:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Ah. You're looking at it on a kind of micro level; 'how can I tell this
> package has been tested?'
For a package maintainer it is especially interesting, whether the own
update has been tested.
> Maybe it makes it clearer if I e
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 22:16 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:
>
> > > No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
> > > feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
> > > just plain useless. Not e
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:
> > No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
> > feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
> > just plain useless. Not even all broken deps are reported in bodhi.
>
> Why do you keep talki
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Nothing like that. It just frustrates me when people don't debate
> > correctly.
>
> Then consider stopping to send further replies. You -- and some other
> participants in these threads -- pipe out way too many replies in
> quick suc
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:11:10 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on.
> > These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
> > For some people it has become a ga
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on.
> These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
> For some people it has become a game of "I'm right - you aren't",
> unfortunately.
Nothing l
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:19:25 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > > which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive
> > > feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if
> > > they notice breakage, they file nega
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive
> > feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if
> > they notice breakage, they file negative feedback.
>
> And they simply don't and can't notice
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:06:33 -0800, Adam wrote:
> as we've explained several times,
It won't get more correct by simply repeating it over and over again.
> most packages that go to
> updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no
> apparent Bodhi feedback.
Certainly not
Hi Jesse,
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
>> different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
>> here) does exactly that. What's
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 20:14:16 Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> >> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
> >> what we see as a be
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I think it's ultimately a Board decision whether we pick one of the two
> target groups and stick to it, or whether we try to cater to both. That
> decision should basically make it obvious what we should do with our
> update streams.
It's a fesco
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 13:49 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Just because KDE 4.2 and Qt 4.5 are "buggy" shouldn't have given 4.4/4.6
> a free ride into stable. Backporting bugs is part of any Fedora package.
> Now that you got your way, this is deteriorating into a shift by you to
> move Fe
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:14 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> >> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
> >> what we see as a bet
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:57 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
> run with them into a stable release. Quite often they pick things
> up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
> the hard problems. They
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> > only updates repo enabled by default.
>
> That's essentially what Adam
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:04 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
> tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
> true nowadays, even if packages stay long in updates-testing.
as we've explained several times, mo
On 03/03/2010 02:36 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> It is a reason but it's not the only reason. Semi-rolling releases allow
>> a subset of the entire packager community to work on an update as a set
>> and then push them when they're known to work together. Currently rawhide
>
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:03 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and does
> expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
> predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates are
> necessary and won't brea
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 20:33 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>
> > On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >>> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> >>> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving u
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 19:43 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> >> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
> >> to update that packages". If you dont want it, rea
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If they want me to debug their issues, sure. Selective updates are not
> supportable. They shouldn't be necessary anyway, as our updates, even
> version upgrades, are supposed to Just Work. Excluding something is just a
> workaround for some bug, and not upgrading most stuff i
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> It is a reason but it's not the only reason. Semi-rolling releases allow
> a subset of the entire packager community to work on an update as a set
> and then push them when they're known to work together. Currently rawhide
> is not so coherent.
>
> We could change rawhide
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:24 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> We could change rawhide from a pure rolling to a semi-rolling model but then
> would we need to have a rawerhide?
Quite likely yes.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
signature.asc
Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>>> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
>>> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
>>> what we see as a better deal for them.
>>
>> I think want
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
> > With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
> > splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer g
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Their release cycles, on release day, are already older then our releases.
> That's the unique role we fill. Well we used to. Now we don't fill any
> particular role at all.
Wrong, we fill the role of providing version upgrades in stable releases.
This also has the side be
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
> > could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
> > dependencies to the stable repo imho.
>
> I think people are going
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Usually, the first question I ask is "Do you have all updates installed?"
>> If the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer
>> any question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to
>> debug alread
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:58:23AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters
> > > wrote:
> > > > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > > > issues, or security pro
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:07:27AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> >>> Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
Matt Domsch wrote:
> The _only_ reason to name something with a 'version' or a 'release' is
> to provide a set point for consistency, either in people's minds
> (marketing), or to provide a technical baseline for interoperability.
> If we continue to take the technical baselines, and move them ad-h
On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
>> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
>> what we see as a better deal for them.
>
> I think wanting to decide for your users
Till Maas wrote:
> Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
> With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
> splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting
> upstream bugfixes fast (especially if I submitted them upstre
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:19:43 -0800,
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:58 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >
> > I added a proposal to this page to codify my thoughts.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
> >
>
> I do like this proposal, and I like w
Till Maas wrote:
> As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
> could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
> dependencies to the stable repo imho.
I think people are going to visit me at home and do really scary things to
me if I push a "securi
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
> > It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
> > POV)
> > F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
> > version
> > with lat
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Usually, the first question I ask is "Do you have all updates installed?" If
> the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer any
> question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to debug
> already fixed problems in old
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Don't give up the fight yet!
>
> I also see that things are not looking good, but we need to fight this to
> the bitter end, or we'll forever feel guilty about having done nothing to
> try to prevent Fedora from getting ruined.
With that mindset, nothing
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
>>
>> Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
>
> "If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows."
Usually, the first question I ask is "Do you have all updates installed?" If
the answer is no, I ask them to inst
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> > When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
>> > need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
>> > a mess.
>>
>> Well, except there's not
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
>> It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
>> POV) F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
>> version with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
> need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
> a mess.
The idea is that our updates, even version upgrades, Just Work. We don't and
shouldn't push stuff which is known to regre
Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
> > need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
> > a mess.
>
> Well, except there's nothing to guess. The regular user should by all
> means know wh
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> >> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 19:14:09 +0100,
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Seth doesn't fix bugs even when they are apparent and when there is no
> risk at all.
yum is a very critical package. Even if the chance of an undetected regression
is low, the consequences of pushing an update with one can be pre
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
> what we see as a better deal for them.
I think wanting to decide for your users is a really arrogant attitude. The
user should be t
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
>> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
>> exclude what you dont want. That's what i di
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> >> > months) and updates for those releases that f
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
>> > months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
>> > security. That is a unique rol
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> > months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
> > security. That is a unique role that is not filled by any current Linux
> > OS.
>
> That s
Jesse Keating wrote:
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
> security. That is a unique role that is not filled by any current Linux
> OS.
That sentence defines Ubuntu exactly. We're not the only one
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Your testing group will *never* be able to test much more than a very
> tiny subset of use cases -- Let them test their limited testing
> scenarios, but keep them out of the rest of testing.
>
> => Instead of slowing down things by deploying a testing group, speed up
> thin
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:58 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> I added a proposal to this page to codify my thoughts.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
>
I do like this proposal, and I like where you were going by defining why
it is we do releases, and what it means to r
Seth Vidal wrote:
> Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
> fedora release.
That can be quite a long time. Providing bugfixes to our stable releases is
important! I won't complain if you do upstream releases regularly and
systematically push them as updates, but
On 03/03/2010 07:03 PM, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
applying fix to a pac
Seth Vidal wrote:
> Having more time opens us up to more testing days and in the near future
> autoqa to help us bounce obviously bad things.
The whole point of AutoQA is that it can get (some) testing done fast
(otherwise why bother with automation?), I don't see why we need to slow
things down
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> >> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
> >> applying fix to a package?
> >>
> >
> > Those items will be released
Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
> exclude what you dont want. That's what i did in F-10.
When there's no policy, and the user has to gues
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
> It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
> POV)
> F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current version
> with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14 (aka
> rawhide) to be
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > > I really can't see t
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:45:02PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > actually works (i.e. if it doesn't lead to maintainers only caring about
> > the
> > conservative stream).
>
> Packagers would then have the choice, I think this can
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> > only updates repo enabled by default.
>
> That's essentially wh
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your
On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
>> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
> Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why shou
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:57:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
> run with them into a stable release. Quite often they pick things
> up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
> the hard problems.
On 03/03/2010 04:51 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> For me personally the type of update I'd like to see slowed down is the
> pure enhancement update or new package updates, ones that do nothing but
> swallow up the latest upstream build or scm snapshot to add new
> features.
#1 on your personal list
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
>
> Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
"If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows."
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
> different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
> here) does exactly that. What's with Debian stable? And i bet even
> ubuntu is like that.
Neither Ope
On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.
Splitting the u
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> actually works (i.e. if it doesn't lead to maintainers only caring about the
> conservative stream).
Packagers would then have the choice, I think this can only be a good
thing. Right now they have the choice, but the user cannot kno
Till Maas wrote:
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.
That's essentially what Adam Williamson and Doug Ledford (both inspired by
Mandriva) already p
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
>> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
>> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>>
>> Well, there you see how
Chris Adams wrote:
> Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
> collection instead of a coherent distribution.
[snip]
> If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
> what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's
> what we are
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
>> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
>> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>>
>> Well, there you see how dumb i am
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>
> Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i speak up for something that
> will not h
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Emmanuel Seyman
wrote:
> * Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 16:00] :
>>
>> Helper: please run in a terminal "kde4-config --version"
>
> If you're going to ask users to use the CLI, you're better off asking
> them the output of "rpm -q kdelibs", the answer will be more pre
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 17:05, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (And BTW, thanks for your replies in this thread. People really need to
> realize that I'm not the only one who likes Fedora BECAUSE of the version
> upgrades!)
We realize it, at least I do fwiw. I see lot's of people saying how
they like Fedora
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
>
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that focus
On 3/3/2010 2:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.
Right now Fedora releases are either "Supported" or "Unsupported." [1]
If we wan
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> Not if they've never updated their install, in which case they've got
> the version of KDE that shipped on release date.
So the first thing you tell users is to run "yum update" and see if that
fixes their problem. It doesn't make sense to try debugging issues with old
s
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 16:00] :
>
> Helper: please run in a terminal "kde4-config --version"
If you're going to ask users to use the CLI, you're better off asking
them the output of "rpm -q kdelibs", the answer will be more precise.
> Not to hard to find out.
And in contradiction to what J
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>
> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
different?
>>>
>>> What do you expect?
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
> and greatest anyway.
With a wait of up to 6 months. That's way too long. That leaves Rawhide,
which isn't suitable for production use. So no option left.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
d
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
>>> Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
>>> bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
>
2010/3/3 Seth Vidal :
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>
>> >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
>> >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
>> >different?
>>
>> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
>> member
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> The problem is that the end-user has no idea what rawhide means. Why
> not let them know. I said already a few times, give people new to
> fedora (fresh installation) something like openSUSE has. A tour trough
> Fedora, and educate them there. It pops up automatically if you
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
> > bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
> > with updates or new bugs introduced with u
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
> >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
> >different?
>
> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
> members of FPB and FESCO) to be graduall
On 03/03/2010 02:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>
>> So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
>> (c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
>> perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped w
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 16:43:37 Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
>
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.
+1
I really don't see why we should treat "previous stable" as a second-class
citizen. It's sup
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
