sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta.
- From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta.
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:25:40 +0200
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:06:34AM +0800, "Jimmy Yen(?????????)" wrote:
[snip]
> >We are losing developers at the rate of one per month. For the simple
> >reason that we are already undermanned and overworked.
> >This was one of my primary reasons for suggesting we remove devel grimoire
> >from easy public access.
> >
> Here's a little story for you. I fixed my broken ifup the day I updated
> my net-tools in test, and when I prepared to submit a bug next day I
> updated my grimoire and found a new, fixed version, with a history file
> indicating that it's fixed days before. I have also seen some bug
> reports that's "already fixed in devel." How does one know that if he
> doesn't have access to devel? And how did I need to duplicate the work
> myself if I could just check devel for the fix?
>
> Now when you limit the access to devel you just take all the work with
> you, and there's no space left for user contributions anymore. How does
> an user become a developer if he can't make contributions first?
Something like "already fixed in devel" won't happen anymore, exactly
due to the changes in our structure. Bugfixes and version updates go
straight into test, and bugs are filed against test.
Basically the only things that happen in devel are updates that the
developers think are too dangerous, like glibc/gcc updates, the new init
system, ... Everything else goes straight into test. (I know the mozilla
update didn't go into test, but i'm pretty happy about that, since
mozilla 1.5b is horribly broken ...)
[snip]
> >We/ I suggested this and took the time to discuss it for almost a month
> >before the change was actually made. I emailed 40 developers and got
> >responses from only 5 (truly pathetic), I moved it to the mail lists and
> >got no extra discussion, I talked on IRC and got no negative feedback or
> >comments. Now to me that means 90 % agreed with the proposal.
> >
> >
> Maybe I'm one of the other 10%, but while I'm always reading the mailing
> list, IIRC when that appeared on the list it's already final. I think
> posting a proposal on the list first would have been much better, as
> some users like me don't even use IRC, and the change really only
> affects users.
It doesn't really affect the users, more the developers. It gives us a
chance to really test stuff like glibc updates before breaking our users
boxen. Another example is the new init system, when it first hit devel
(right after devel was removed from the public) there were only the
basic scripts needed to start the system. No spell had init scripts that
worked with the new system, and it took a lot of time to convert most of
them. Additional benefit for the users in this case was that we could
fix most of the issues that appeared when switching init systems, so
that the switch is now as painless as possible for our users.
> >AS i see it now it is quite simple.
> >
> >
> >a) if something has a stable release that works we support it.
> >b) if (due to compiler upgrade or software incompatibility) a stable
> >release gets broken and a beta/alpha release is the fix then we will use
> >it.
> >c) pre-stable releases are a different issue, if software hasn't hit the
> >magic 1.X.X release then we will use whichever one is the best for us,
> >whether it is 0.1 or 0.99
> >d) if you want the absolute cutting edge nothing is stopping you. You can
> >manually change details or submit unstable spells to devel via whatever
> >method you have (cvs, perforce, bugzilla)
> >
> >
> In some cases (e.g. Mozilla) the release number really has nothing to do
> with stability. I use CVS version of Mozilla just because I can get the
> bugfixes I need before the .0 version finally arrives. (And of course I'm
> not stupid enough to build it just after a major landing!)
I said it above, mozilla 1.5b is horribly broken here, nothing works.
Mozilla really is one of the programs where the spell should track the
stable release, most alpha/beta versions of it have been seriously
broken for me. And you can always use mozilla-nightly.
> >I don't think we should be wasting our time with unstable releases IF the
> >software has a stable alternative that works.
> >
> >
> But how do you define "stable?" Is it stable if it builds on one
> developer's machine ? Is it stable if it builds on two developers'
> machines ? Is it stable if it runs for five minutes ? Is it stable if
> two people use it for a week ? ;)
>
> No, no one can decide if a program is stable enough, at least not for
> everyone. And that's why we users need options to decide ourselves. I
> had never blindly done a sorcery --system-update even once on devel
> grimoire, when it was available to the public; I picked up individual
> spells to build instead. Now I just don't have that option anymore.
I know that stable is hard to define, but i'd define it that if a
developer of the program releases stable/unstable releases we stick to
the stable one (unless the developer clearly states that the
unstable/devel release is actually more stable).
And you still have the option to check most version updates, since they
go directly into test grimoire.
> While, of course, as you guys have said a thousand times, that I can
> manually update DETAILS's and BUILD's my self, just do that on the whole
> gnome section to prove your argument. It sounds more like "We are not
> limiting the users to create their own distros."
>
> >Now if we need to revisit the issue and find some better development plan
> >PLEASE start discussing it. I like open discussion, i don't like moaning
> >and groaning after an uncontested change has been made. If you think the
> >current approach is wrong then offer an alternative.
> >
> >
> (I hear you moaning...)
>
> Alright - here comes my suggestion. Last time I checked, Sorcerer only
> has one main grimoire. So why don't we dump a grimoire too, say, test
> grimoire?
>
> In my past exprience, test is never stable enough to warrant a safe
> sorcery --system-update. It's not even stable for me, and I'd rather
> call it "late grimorie" now - a mirror of devel except for later updates
> and bugfixes. While people who want to use SMGL on production systems
> would go to stable, and people who use test wouldn't expect it to be
> stable, why not just dump test and make devel publicly accessible?
> Whenever a specific spell is not working people can always avoid to
> update it - that's how I used to be doing when devel was available.
> Major changes such as the recent init update can - and, IMHUO, should -
> always take place in a branch.
That's exactly what this whole change was about. devel grimoire _is_ the
branch. test grimoire is the grimoire that gets the updates and
bugfixes, devel is for major changes.
--
Arwed v. Merkatz
Grimoire Guru for video
Grimoire Guru for xfce
Sourcemage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta.
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Ladislav Hagara, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Hamish Greig, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Jason Flatt, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Eric Sandall, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Christoph Steckelberg, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Arwed von Merkatz, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Christoph Steckelberg, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Ladislav Hagara, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Eric Sandall, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., , 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Arwed von Merkatz, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Hamish Greig, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Gnome section - Updating to Beta., Jason Flatt, 09/03/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.