* Przemek Klosowski [01/02/2012 19:58] :
>
> I am just trying to explore if there's a way around that.
The answer is the same on this subject and the rolling release:
You need to get a group together, put together a set of specifications
that everybody agrees on and start working on making it happ
2012/2/1 Bruno Wolff III :
> A lot of people need to step up and do the work. So far no one has been
> able to successfully organize a group to do it. And given Fedora is more
> likely
> to attract people who want to run the latest and (hopefully) greatest stuff,
> I would expect finding a lot of
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 13:20:58 -0500,
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>
> Precisely---but lack of the EOL path sometimes prevents use of
> Fedora in the first place. Jon Vos said elsewhere in this discussion
> that "Fedora is not for long term if updates/security are an issue.
> Period."
>
> I am j
On 01/31/2012 04:27 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Przemek Klosowski [31/01/2012 00:37] :
To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
version into an appropriate release of one of the
long-term-supported systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific
Linux.
This would be a mas
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> The downgrades would actually be better than having an unsupported
> system that doesn't get any updates ever. The assumption here is that
> the downgrades aren't introducing any security or fundamental
> functionality issues--hopefully, 'long term support' means that the
* Przemek Klosowski [31/01/2012 00:37] :
>
> To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
> version into an appropriate release of one of the
> long-term-supported systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific
> Linux.
This would be a massive distraction from our mission.
Get th
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:26:49AM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> At the same time, if the deployment is successful, we're no longer
> chasing the latest features, and the stability becomes paramount---the
> good is the enemy of the best. For a while, Fedora allows us to coast on
> such a ru
On 01/31/2012 10:45 AM, Jos Vos wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:36:32AM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
The downgrades would actually be better than having an unsupported
system that doesn't get any updates ever. The assumption here is that
the downgrades aren't introducing any security or fu
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:36:32AM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> The downgrades would actually be better than having an unsupported
> system that doesn't get any updates ever. The assumption here is that
> the downgrades aren't introducing any security or fundamental
> functionality issues-
On 01/30/2012 07:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
version into an appropriate release of one of the long-term-supported
systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific Linux.
This is impossible due to how the Fedor
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
> version into an appropriate release of one of the long-term-supported
> systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific Linux.
This is impossible due to how the Fedora and RHEL releases align, and it is
impo
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:05 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
> I'm using Tumbleweed for some releases now and I'm amazed to see how
> smooth and painless openSUSE make it look to use and maintain. To
> them, it is basically just a repo, but, as Greg said, this "ease of
> maintain" is due to the openSU
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 23:26 +, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
> I do not thing it is worthwhile for them to do so. There may already
> be a document somewhere on the wiki on this topic. It will never be
> found because since the day mediawiki was rolled out there has not
> been a usable search.
T
On 01/30/2012 05:17 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>
> The argument against rolling upgrades is that it's a wonderful idea
> early on, but then you run into a morass as time goes on, because of:
>
> - difficulty of handling wanted vs. unwanted updates, which in turn
> creates combinatorially growi
On 01/28/2012 07:42 PM, Noah Hall wrote:
Fuduntu Dev here.
...
Fuduntu didn't start out as a rolling release. We had versions for a
while, until we realised we were basically releasing newer snapshots
of our current software with slightly different defaults.
Having discussed it as a team, we d
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Noah Hall wrote:
> Fuduntu Dev here.
One question for you with your Fuduntu Dev hat on.
Is Fuduntu is still using a Gnome 2 derived desktop experience?
Assuming that is true. And please correct me if it is not. Can you
point me to any documentation or any arch
I'm using Tumbleweed for some releases now and I'm amazed to see how
smooth and painless openSUSE make it look to use and maintain. To
them, it is basically just a repo, but, as Greg said, this "ease of
maintain" is due to the openSUSE Build Service and I'm not sure this
will be so easy in Fedora.
On 01/30/2012 08:05 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Fedora's huge advantage and huge disatvantage is the same - For a great number
of packages the package maintainer is upstream developer too.
This is great in my eyes, making all other distros not even coming close for
development purposes. Bu
- Original Message -
> From: "Brendan Jones"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:44:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Rolling release Fedora - fantastic idea
>
> On 01/30/2012 12:59 AM, Henrique Junior wrote:
> > I've
On 01/30/2012 01:49 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for
Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project.
If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
I'll pass on either, the o
I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for
Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project.
If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revive
On 01/30/2012 12:59 AM, Henrique Junior wrote:
I've started talking to Greg KH, the guy who implemented openSUSE
Tumbleweed. Here is what he said:
1 - What were the changes in the infrastructure necessary for the operation of
openSUSE Tumbleweed?
None.
2 - The Tumbleweed has led to a great "
On 01/30/2012 01:17 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:23:07 -0500
Genes MailLists wrote:
On 01/28/2012 12:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
...snip...
...
I think the way forward is the one I outlined in:
http://lists.fedorapr
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:23:07 -0500
Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 12:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
> > Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
>
> ...
>
> >
> > I think the way forward is the one I outlined in:
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.or
On 01/29/2012 11:57 PM, Noah Hall wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen
wrote:
- "Brendan Jones" wrote:
On 01/28/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,
19.
This model been working for us for a
I've started talking to Greg KH, the guy who implemented openSUSE
Tumbleweed. Here is what he said:
> 1 - What were the changes in the infrastructure necessary for the operation of
> openSUSE Tumbleweed?
None.
> 2 - The Tumbleweed has led to a great "cost" in manpower to be maintained?
Nope, it'
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.01.2012 23:57, schrieb Noah Hall:
>> Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
>> user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
>> with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious
Am 29.01.2012 23:57, schrieb Noah Hall:
> Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
> user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
> with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
> time.
why are you doing it instead a yum
On dom, 2012-01-29 at 22:57 +, Noah Hall wrote:
> I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
> with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
> time. Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?
Whatever their reasons might be, Ubunt
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen
wrote:
>
> - "Brendan Jones" wrote:
>
>> On 01/28/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
>
>
>
>> >
>> > Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,
>> 19.
>> > This model been working for us for a short while now.
>> >
On 01/29/2012 10:56 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Brendan Jones" wrote:
On 01/28/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,
19.
This model been working for us for a short while now.
You guys are already set up for su
- "Brendan Jones" wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> >
> > Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,
> 19.
> > This model been working for us for a short while now.
> >
> > You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some
>
On 01/28/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
weigh in.
First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm certain
that it's possible, since I'
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:10:00 -0600, AW (Andrew) wrote:
> First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
> certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15,
> 16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left
> at it's core with much su
* Genes MailLists [29/01/2012 09:51] :
>
> Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
> core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the RH
> business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
> setting, this is quite likely not to go
On 01/29/2012 06:12 AM, Noah Hall wrote:
> Fuduntu Dev here.
>
> I'm not going to bore you all on how great rolling is, and how it's a
> great model that works for everyone - I'll assume the good folks of
> Fedora have already researched many different models. Instead, what
> I'm going to talk abo
On 01/29/2012 04:53 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>
> Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
> core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the RH
> business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
> setting, this is quite like
I thought you didn't speak for the community. I'm sorry if forking hurt your
feelings, but there really were only two options. Go forward and rework
everything for 15 or 16, or fork. Fedora 14 was EOS, remember?
Besides, you have no right and no business telling me where I am or am not
welcome.
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
> Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
> offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response with
> "just go away".
After seeing you boast about how "at Fudun
Fuduntu Dev here.
I'm not going to bore you all on how great rolling is, and how it's a
great model that works for everyone - I'll assume the good folks of
Fedora have already researched many different models. Instead, what
I'm going to talk about is the feasibility and the logistics.
Fuduntu did
On 01/28/2012 04:26 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
Gene, forgive me while I go off on a slight tangent forking the thread.
I do not thing it is worthwhile for them to do so. There may already be a
document somewhere on the wiki on this topic. It will never be found because
since the day mediaw
- "Genes MailLists" wrote:
>
> Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
> core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the
> RH
> business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
> setting, this is quite likely not to go too
On 01/28/2012 12:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
> Andrew Wyatt wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
...
>
> I think the way forward is the one I outlined in:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html
>
> Until those interested can organize
On 01/28/2012 05:40 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
> and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
> weigh in.
>
> First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
> certain that it's possibl
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 07:41:47AM -0600, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 10:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please
> >leave us in peace!
> >Good luck! ^^
> >
> > Kevin Kofler
> >
>
> Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Just a
On 01/28/2012 10:59 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response
with
"ju
On 01/28/2012 11:23 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
...snip...
Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of
developers" feel that it's a "waste of time" is not vali
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:15:11AM -0600, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
> value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of developers"
> feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism of the idea.
>
> If you "can't
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
> I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
> Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
> offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response
> with
> "just go away".
>
> There is a difference bet
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
...snip...
> Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
> value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of
> developers" feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism
> of the idea.
>
> If you
On 01/28/2012 10:35 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Next time try to "be excellent to each other." Two things I personally get tired of
reading. A rhetorical question comes to mind "W
- "Andrew Wyatt" wrote:
>
> Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Next time try to "be excellent to each other." Two things I personally get
tired of reading. A rhetorical question comes to mind "Would you rather he was
excellent to you and lie
On 01/27/2012 10:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please leave
us in peace!
Good luck! ^^
Kevin Kofler
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
> certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15,
> 16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu
You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please leave us in
peace!
> which still
I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
weigh in.
First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15,
16, an
55 matches
Mail list logo
