Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Elisamuel Resto <samuel AT dragonboricua.net>]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:18:24 +0400 Vlad Glagolev wrote:

> > Here's my take on the issue: revert the reversion, i.e. go back to gtk+2
> > 2.14.
> 
> Okay. But that's your choice. As I already said I don't wanna have lots of 
> semi-b0rked spells
> in local grimoire or any other grimoire, having such issues. I stop to 
> contribute to SMGL until
> the problem is solved. If you're still on 2.12 or don't think about any 
> users except yourself --
> I just can't help with it, and I won't follow this way. I thought SMGL 
> project follow the
> bugless way, as I can see now -- it doesn't and I was wrong. Because of 
> someone's thought "we
> just need to update for update, doesn't matter if it affects the 
> users/increase the number of
> problems or no".

As it was your sole choice and discretion to revert Robin's change without
discussion with either himself or other developers. You are being selfish 
always
mentioning stuff like "I don't want $this" -- there is no I in we.

> > I think this is the right solution mainly because we simply don't know
> > how widespread this issue is, and if we don't update, we will never find
> > out.
> 
> We _do_ and even more: we _know_. And we have a lot of info about it. Yes, 
> not from SMGL users
> cause I said: I just prevented the SMGL users from the problem. There are a 
> lot of video chips
> (mainly on laptops) affected. Xorg devs proved, that's not distro-specific. 
> And even Jaka
> understood: that's a _code_ problem, not any stupid config or video-card 
> configuration or
> something similiar.
> 
> I repeat: it's a wide-spread problem, and it's _KNOWN_:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/gtk/+bug/245383
> 
> Even more: every few hours/days the number of bugreports is increased.
> And I have _THE SAME_ problem. I'm not ubuntu user (yes, really; at least 
> ohloh prooves that).
> 
> Isn't the proof from gtk+ developers, xorg developers and linux users not 
> enough (as we already
> talked, it's not distro-specific) for you? If so, I can't talk about such 
> proof anymore.

It is because you jumped the gun that things got this way.

> > It was a violation of our established processes to revert it without
> > discussion, as it was a perfectly fine working spell.
> 
> And now you wanna revert it after the discussion. Huh, funny. So as I see, 
> it wouldn't change
> anything.

Of course, there wasn't a discussion beforehand. You can complain all you want
now.

> > We have a lot of apps and libs in the grimoire with bugs that affect one 
> > or more users.
> 
> And we shouldn't keep those bugs silently if we wanna keep the community of 
> users (yes, users)
> increasing.

I personally report as I see them, but we can't possibly test every possible
configuration, but we know there are bugs. That we don't personally experience
them is a whole different matter.

> > It's simply not feasible to keep stuff at older versions until that
> > isn't the case anymore, or debian stable will be more up-to-date than we
> > are.
> 
> There's no any spell strictly requiring gtk+ >= 2.14 (and won't be for a 
> pretty long preiod of
> time, if you read/researched gtk+ roadmap). Interesting, but even ArchLinux 
> devs keep gtk+
> 2.12. They also have glib 2.18, but only in "Testing". And the funniest 
> thing is they don't
> have gtk+ 2.14 _even in "Testing"_. It won't hurt the system, and the 
> system won't be out of
> date for a grace period of time.

The reverse also applies (no spells requiring >= 2.14). Also, we are Source 
Mage,
not Arch Linux or Lunar Linux. Source Mage.

> > Depending on the feedback we get once this is in test, we may or may not
> > revert the update in the next stable-rc, but for test grimoire, I
> > consider this not big enough an issue to force this downgrade.
> 
> That's not qualified downgrade. The last release from 2.12 branch was out 
> few days ago.

And? as Jaka said: "Having a release on the 2.12 branch means that it had 
enough
bugs to merit a release."

> > We can even attach the
> > old spells to the bug report for those who don't read sm-discuss.
> 
> Feel free to do so.
> 
> 
> I repeat one more time: that's not distro-development process. Where a user 
> phucks his brain
> everytime he wants to get his system _just working_. We should improve the 
> quality of the end-
> user product, imho, not downgrading it. If a user wants to get pretty 
> stable and recently
> updated system: he must cast test grimoire (yes, sometimes we need the 
> recent software), create
> local grimoire, create gtk+ spell there, create gail spell there (yes, he 
> must know how to do
> that too), play with scribe. It's even more sex than with 
> xorg-modular.tar.bz2.
> 
> Most of the devs (and some cool users) play and work with test grimoire.

And as such they should expect stuff to be broken for a amount of time while
things get settled.

> Again and again, quoting sandalle: test grimoire isn't for testing upstream 
> bugs. I don't
> wanna see the grimoire as a collection of broken stuff. And I also don't 
> wanna track all those
> spells having issues just before tagging to next -rc.

Again and again, we test things out and if they work we keep them, if not they
get reverted. That has been the process since before you and myself became
developers.

> I can't switch to stable, too. That makes me useless as developer. So I 
> stop the activity.
> Sorry for incomprehension.

You are free to do what you please, but I will beg that next time you attempt
to give it a go, if you do, that you work as part of a team, not as a 
standalone
developer pushing changes.


I appreciate you keeping our python spells in check, and providing me feedback
when I have asked, but please don't hold such attitude just because something
didn't go how you wanted. Groups of people are always bound to have 
differences
in ways of doing things and one needs to shape-up or discuss if things can be
changed over properly. The key is communication.

-- 
Elisamuel Resto <samuel AT dragonboricua.net>
Source Mage Tome Lead  / http://sourcemage.org
GPG ID: 18615F19/1024D / http://simplysam.us

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature