Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
12.03.2012 00:32, Colin Guthrie kirjoitti: Hi, Hi, We're aiming to get a PA 2.0 release out very soon (within the next 4 weeks). [...] Can this go it? I think it's worth it. I think pulseaudio is an acceptable candidate for exception here, mainly because - it fixes some big audio usability issues (that will only affect more and more systems during MGA2 lifetime) with the new features, and - our package maintainer is the upstream maintainer as well, allowing efficient handling of any bugreports. However, I know I'm probably more lax here than others, so this requires the input of other release managers before a decision. -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
Le lundi 12 mars 2012 à 17:25 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit : 12.03.2012 00:32, Colin Guthrie kirjoitti: Hi, Hi, We're aiming to get a PA 2.0 release out very soon (within the next 4 weeks). [...] Can this go it? I think it's worth it. I think pulseaudio is an acceptable candidate for exception here, mainly because - it fixes some big audio usability issues (that will only affect more and more systems during MGA2 lifetime) with the new features, and - our package maintainer is the upstream maintainer as well, allowing efficient handling of any bugreports. However, I know I'm probably more lax here than others, so this requires the input of other release managers before a decision. For the sake of documenting : - I have seen that Ubuntu precise still ship 1.1, and they aim for a much longer support than us ( iirc, 5 years this time ). They also plan to release 1 week before us : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/ReleaseSchedule - Fedora, also usually shipping latest version ( or even shipping git snapshot of the glibc during the freeze ), do not have it in rawhide for now, and not in Fedora 17. The next release is 1 week after us : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/17/Schedule While Ubuntu do not ship kernel 3.3 in Precise ( but have backported the jack detection stuff ), Fedora 17 does have it. So both of them would benefit from shipping PA 2.0 instead of 1.1, and they didn't chose to do so. They also have likely more people working on it, and likely a wider array of testers than us. However, ubuntu decide to use some kind of patches to PA for the jack detection part. The next issue I have is that beside adding bug fixes, that's still a 2.0. While version number are just version number, as said on http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Notes/1.0 , we do not have much information on what got changed, and the current page is rather scarce : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Documentation/Developer/ReleasePlanning So I personally cannot evaluate how disturbing they would be, or what they would impact. And sorry, I cannot say yes if I think I have not enough information to evaluate. That was my 2nd point. The third point is that you say you will revert if there is a problem, but I would make sure that we clearly define what is a problem in a way that do not suffer from any problem of interpretation. Because if we are not clear now, we will just push the discussion to later and that's not the moment usually. So I want to make sure that we all fully agree on what would trigger a reverse before even thinking to say yes to the request. Because despite asking during meeting, not everybody was on the same wavelength for version freeze, and I see no reason to have the same problem a 2nd time. And I want to make sure that if we revert, there will be no last minute negotiation, no matter how harsh would be a revert. So i would say 'no' until we have such document. What would be in there is left open. For example, one of the criteria could be a deadline for the release of 2.0. If the release slip only of 1 second, that's too late and we revert. The current target date is 26/03, and we have our release freeze on 07/04. So I would say that if PA is not released on 26/03, that's too late. Or we can say if there is 1 bug written as critical on our bugzilla, or the one of PA and not fixed on XX. Or anything. Without clear conditions being agreed first, I would say no, that's my 3rd reason. And while I do not doubt this would be really useful for free software to have a bunch of testers with our users, and that free software benefit from shipping RC in distribution, I still think that the beta are here to fix our bugs rather than those of upstream, and that our users are not guinea pigs for upstream. That's not exactly what we promised to them, and for that reason alone, I would also say no for now, and that's a 4th reason. Finally, I would like to remind that pulseaudio is basically installed on every installation besides servers, and is critical to the sound infrastructure. And so, just for the fact that this is central, it should not be version upgraded if that was not really planned, just for a feature, for simple risk prevention. We were praised for being stable just because we basically did several months of debug, and I think we should strive to keep that reputation, by reusing the same simple recipe ( ie, being cautious and do really more test ). Being rock solid stable is the only thing where we seems to all agree in our previous discussion. And being central to both KDE and GNOME, it would be present on the livecd and would not be upgraded and as such, and because some people use them as liveusb ( ie, without any upgrade ), we cannot treat this as we can upgrade later if it slip, because we cannot for some people. And as a side note, I would also remind that some people ( like Pierre Jarillon, for example )
Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
Στις Δευτέρα 12 Μάρτιος 2012 22:04:46 Michael Scherer γράψατε: Le lundi 12 mars 2012 à 17:25 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit : 12.03.2012 00:32, Colin Guthrie kirjoitti: Hi, Hi, We're aiming to get a PA 2.0 release out very soon (within the next 4 weeks). [...] Can this go it? I think it's worth it. I think pulseaudio is an acceptable candidate for exception here, mainly because - it fixes some big audio usability issues (that will only affect more and more systems during MGA2 lifetime) with the new features, and - our package maintainer is the upstream maintainer as well, allowing efficient handling of any bugreports. However, I know I'm probably more lax here than others, so this requires the input of other release managers before a decision. For the sake of documenting : - I have seen that Ubuntu precise still ship 1.1, and they aim for a much longer support than us ( iirc, 5 years this time ). They also plan to release 1 week before us : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/ReleaseSchedule - Fedora, also usually shipping latest version ( or even shipping git snapshot of the glibc during the freeze ), do not have it in rawhide for now, and not in Fedora 17. The next release is 1 week after us : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/17/Schedule While Ubuntu do not ship kernel 3.3 in Precise ( but have backported the jack detection stuff ), Fedora 17 does have it. So both of them would benefit from shipping PA 2.0 instead of 1.1, and they didn't chose to do so. They also have likely more people working on it, and likely a wider array of testers than us. However, ubuntu decide to use some kind of patches to PA for the jack detection part. The next issue I have is that beside adding bug fixes, that's still a 2.0. While version number are just version number, as said on http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Notes/1.0 , we do not have much information on what got changed, and the current page is rather scarce : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Documentation/Developer/ReleasePlanning So I personally cannot evaluate how disturbing they would be, or what they would impact. And sorry, I cannot say yes if I think I have not enough information to evaluate. That was my 2nd point. The third point is that you say you will revert if there is a problem, but I would make sure that we clearly define what is a problem in a way that do not suffer from any problem of interpretation. Because if we are not clear now, we will just push the discussion to later and that's not the moment usually. So I want to make sure that we all fully agree on what would trigger a reverse before even thinking to say yes to the request. Because despite asking during meeting, not everybody was on the same wavelength for version freeze, and I see no reason to have the same problem a 2nd time. And I want to make sure that if we revert, there will be no last minute negotiation, no matter how harsh would be a revert. So i would say 'no' until we have such document. What would be in there is left open. For example, one of the criteria could be a deadline for the release of 2.0. If the release slip only of 1 second, that's too late and we revert. The current target date is 26/03, and we have our release freeze on 07/04. So I would say that if PA is not released on 26/03, that's too late. Or we can say if there is 1 bug written as critical on our bugzilla, or the one of PA and not fixed on XX. Or anything. Without clear conditions being agreed first, I would say no, that's my 3rd reason. And while I do not doubt this would be really useful for free software to have a bunch of testers with our users, and that free software benefit from shipping RC in distribution, I still think that the beta are here to fix our bugs rather than those of upstream, and that our users are not guinea pigs for upstream. That's not exactly what we promised to them, and for that reason alone, I would also say no for now, and that's a 4th reason. Finally, I would like to remind that pulseaudio is basically installed on every installation besides servers, and is critical to the sound infrastructure. And so, just for the fact that this is central, it should not be version upgraded if that was not really planned, just for a feature, for simple risk prevention. We were praised for being stable just because we basically did several months of debug, and I think we should strive to keep that reputation, by reusing the same simple recipe ( ie, being cautious and do really more test ). Being rock solid stable is the only thing where we seems to all agree in our previous discussion. And being central to both KDE and GNOME, it would be present on the livecd and would not be upgraded and as such, and because some people use them as liveusb ( ie, without any upgrade ), we cannot treat
Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
On 12/03/12 08:38, Sander Lepik wrote: 12.03.2012 00:32, Colin Guthrie kirjutas: Anyway, this is my justification. I have packages ready to roll. Can this go it? I think it's worth it. Col Working sound is for many users a must have. So if PA 2.0 will get us better support here then i'm all in. No point to wait another year to get this support. Especially if we have upstream with us to fis problems ASAP. -- Sander I agree sound issues can be very annoying for Desktop Linux users to deal with or try and deal with, especially for the less technical. Sound is also one of those area's where people generally expect it to just work on their computer. Newer is not always better, but going by what Colin typed, Pulseaudio 2.0 will be quite a bit better than previous versions. Since Colin works on Pulseaudio upstream, but is also the maintainer for Mageia, and it seems has provided good enough reasons for Mageia 2 to have it, I think yes let's have it in Mageia 2 :). Also the previous version can be reverted to before the release candidate of Mageia 2 quite easily it seems going by the log of the earlier council meeting: http://meetbot.mageia.org/mageia-meeting/2012/mageia-meeting.2012-03-12-20.17.log.html
Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
Hi, 'Twas brillig, and Michael Scherer at 12/03/12 21:04 did gyre and gimble: For the sake of documenting : ... So for thoses 5 reasons, I would say no, even if I would rather see this just for free software advancement. I originally wrote a reply to this that went through and answered the individual points. However, on reflection and re-reading of my replies I felt it was better to just reply generically as I don't want to nit-pick and do a tit-for-tat type reply here as you're points are all valid and well reasoned. Along with the Triage team who do an sterling job, I am the primary person dealing with fallout from audio issues. I obviously take pride in the work I do and I in no way want want to jeopardise the reputations of either Mageia or PulseAudio and as such I will use the revert option without hesitation for rc if I or anyone else genuinely feels that the newer version reflects badly on Mageia. I fully accept the timing sucks here, but considering the lifetime of mga2 I still feel this is the right direction. Col -- Colin Guthrie colin(at)mageia.org http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
but considering the lifetime of mga2 I still feel this is the right direction. Col Agreed Mageia 2 will be supported for 18 months. Mageia has a 9 months release cycle (unless delayed for longer). That means Mageia 3 is probably in January or February. However let's take Ubuntu for example it means they will probably have Pulseaudio 2.0 if not in Ubuntu 12.04 in Ubuntu 12.10 probably (or a later version of Pulseaudio) and so quite a bit before Mageia 3. Then for certain people Pulseaudio will seem rather old in Mageia 2, when Ubuntu and other distros are using a later version in their latest final release at the time before Mageia 3 gets released.
[Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
Hi, We're aiming to get a PA 2.0 release out very soon (within the next 4 weeks). I wasn't originally intending to request this release in mga2 purely because I wasn't aware that we were getting kernel 3.3 until recently (my bad). As you'll have seen from my reply to Thomas' announce about the kernel, and as we've now merged the relevant patches in upstream PA to make use of the new interfaces in kernel 3.3, I'd be very keen to push that we include PA 2.0 in mga2. The primary reason for this is jack detection. This has been a big feature that has been missing and it's taken a long time and a lot of cooperation to get the necessary features merged and available in the various layers. There is still work to do but the key parts will be working. We have bugs reported against mga1 regarding this topic. I'm confident that the changes in PA 2.0 are not risky and as upstream I'm in a good position to push updates and fixes later anyway if needed. Also being involved in an important part of linux plumbing and including the fruits of that labour in mga2 is good from a PR perspective (I have seen several comments long the lines of it's good to see Mageia folks involved in plumbing on e.g. lwn.net and similar). Anyway, this is my justification. I have packages ready to roll. Can this go it? I think it's worth it. Col -- Colin Guthrie colin(at)mageia.org http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:32:45PM +, Colin Guthrie wrote: There is still work to do but the key parts will be working. We have bugs reported against mga1 regarding this topic. I noticed some Canonical person working on gnome-control-center mockups for the jack detection. It might be included in 12.04, not sure. Might also be in GNOME 3.4. Probably you know more than me. Can lookup the details instead of all this guessing if you want. -- Regards, Olav
Re: [Mageia-dev] Freeze Push Question: pulseaudio
'Twas brillig, and Olav Vitters at 11/03/12 23:19 did gyre and gimble: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:32:45PM +, Colin Guthrie wrote: There is still work to do but the key parts will be working. We have bugs reported against mga1 regarding this topic. I noticed some Canonical person working on gnome-control-center mockups for the jack detection. It might be included in 12.04, not sure. Might also be in GNOME 3.4. Probably you know more than me. Can lookup the details instead of all this guessing if you want. That's David. I don't think it'll be in 3.4 but it'll certainly be part of 3.6 when it comes along, thus is could make backports easier in the future if this is on the cards. Col -- Colin Guthrie colin(at)mageia.org http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
