On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 06:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Well, that's a rather specialized taste.
>
>> And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you
>> think Thomas
On 03/05/2010 06:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> I suspect that the Fedora policy, as stated, makes the most sense for
>> most people who use Fedora. There is no rule against pushing new
>> package releases to updates, but they're
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:27:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:07 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you think
> > Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's "drink from the
> > firehose" and tha
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> > If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on
> > older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's
> > actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example:
> >
> > - new version 4.6
> >
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:55:23PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fed...@gmail.com) said:
> > There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing
> > KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school
> > and at work), I like it. I don't blam
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on
> older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's
> actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example:
>
> - new version 4.6
> -> push it to rawhide, get testi
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:47 +0530, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>
>> > That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
>> > post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.
>>
>> Uh, oh - it wasn't a *
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:07 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you think
> Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's "drink from the
> firehose" and that == rawhide, I agree that that's specialized. If it's
> semi-rolling
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> > So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use Fedora
>> > over one of the other mainstream Distros if Fedora is
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn,
>> that shouldn't happen, but sh!t happens. I saw a lot more and even
>> terrible stuff happen in Fedora.
>
> So first you claim there's no regre
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> >
> > Well, no. It wouldn't be a very hot leading distro. It would be
> > nothing more than any other distro with the same release-cycle.
>
> Assuming that other distros were packaging
On 03/05/2010 09:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Uh, what? How does what you said relate to what I said in any way?
>
> Rahul wasn't claiming that Fedora has a strict conservative update
> policy. He was pointing out that Fedora does *not* have a strict
> bleeding-edge policy. Wherein is that 'ur
Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fed...@gmail.com) said:
> There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing
> KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school
> and at work), I like it. I don't blame people who don't. Here is the
> thing: The bugs need to be reported mos
On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
>>> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
>>>
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:40 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> There are regressions. But not just in KDE. But interesting that so
> much people cry about KDE only.
I agree with that, and I said so earlier in the thread...
> And Yes, it's always bad if terrible stuff happens. But you cant
> reduce *
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
>> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
>> BZ as well?
>
> (snip)
>
>> The ne
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:47 +0530, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> > That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
> > post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.
>
> Uh, oh - it wasn't a *claim*. Its just the popular saying, urban
> myth, a general f
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
> BZ as well?
(snip)
> The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn,
> that
* Thomas Janssen [05/03/2010 17:03] :
>
> If you ask me, i say, have a face, have a character and offer
> something the others dont. Fedora is exactly that right now.
We're left with the problem that what Fedora is right now isn't
working (massive amounts of updates that our users have to download
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
>> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
>> > every ups
2010/3/5 Adam Williamson :
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
>> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
>> > every upstream release into the update
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
> > every upstream release into the updates repository
> >
> > http://fedo
I wrote:
> 4.4.1 is not built yet. It will probably be put into kde-redhat testing in
> addition to the official updates-testing (the exact same binary packages)
> for those who don't want to easily test it without pulling in all of
> updates-testing.
Uh, I butchered that sentence. I mean:
4.4.1 i
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
>> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
>> "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills w
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>> I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
>> RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
>> http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/
>
> 4.4.0 is already an official updat
Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
> RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
> http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/
4.4.0 is already an official update, why would kde-redhat carry it?
4.4.1 is not built yet. It
On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
> "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands
> for out there in the wild. To be a lead
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> D
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users ge
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
>> you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
>> that you blow into the same horn as others do
On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
> you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
> that you blow into the same horn as others do? If so, i would have
> expected more from you
>
I faced m
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
>> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
>> BZ as well?
>>
> A while back a kde update c
On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
> BZ as well?
>
A while back a kde update caused kmail to stop working on imap accounts
and I dont use th
On 03/05/2010 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.
>
Of course you don't which is part of the problem since you continue to
not treat the risk of regressions as seriously as you should even though
the latest push did cause problems despite
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
>> of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends
>> frozen frustration" in the future ...
>>
>
> h
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
> maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
> every upstream release into the updates repository
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
1. That policy is not
On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
> of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends
> frozen frustration" in the future ...
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations
The four foundations
John5342 wrote:
> Sorry. That was perhaps rather strongly worded. I was not suggesting
> going against policies if they are mandated. My complaint about sheep
> was towards the option of defering. Not the act of following what is
> mandated if such policies are passed. Until such stuff is mandated
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:15:50PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
> If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy then I could
> agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
> latest always you could use kde-
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Like most any group making hard decisions, the KDE SIG bases them on the
> best information available. Fact is, we extensively tested this new version
> for over a month, and every serious issue/blocker that was reported or
> identified was ad
On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>
If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
[...]
> 3. adjust plans/policy wrt kde upgrades.
> a. implement kde stability proposal as is (to limit 4.x type upgrades to at
> most one per fedora release)
>
> b. simply do new 4.x versions only for fn+1? pros: less chance to disrupt
> curren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 19:00, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> John5342 wrote:
>> A simple way to encourage constructive input from users on both the
>> state of play and providing more bug reports might be to regularly
>> (perhaps even daily as soon as a significant update comes along) to
>> post a list of
John5342 wrote:
> A simple way to encourage constructive input from users on both the
> state of play and providing more bug reports might be to regularly
> (perhaps even daily as soon as a significant update comes along) to
> post a list of all the bugs that are reported against the updates
> (bot
On 03/04/2010 11:28 PM, John5342 wrote:
>
> In my opinion most of fesco has lost it's mind even contemplating the
> recent suggestions. Please don't destroy one of Fedora's greatest
> strengths for the sake of some morons who want Fedora to be RedHat
> with a different colored hat... I am getting f
t mostly includes the betas and rcs from kde-redhat too).
Keep up the great work.
> So here we are in a bit of a pickle, with many unhappy folks. Brain dump on
> "how to make things better(tm)" (or for you glass half-empty folks, "how to
> make things suck less(t
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, the KDE SIG could stop ignoring the problems that were
> > caused this week by the updates they released. Even an "I'm sorry I broke
> > your desktop" would go a long way. The update the busted my desktop
> > happen
do the 4.4.0 (stable) update. Yeah, that
sucks.
So here we are in a bit of a pickle, with many unhappy folks. Brain dump on
"how to make things better(tm)" (or for you glass half-empty folks, "how to
make things suck less(tm)"):
1. Improve communication. Seems there&#x
50 matches
Mail list logo
