diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005572.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005572.html | 388 |
1 files changed, 388 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005572.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005572.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d71e01fb3 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005572.html @@ -0,0 +1,388 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C1308012738.24304.147.camel%40akroma.ephaone.org%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005489.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="005498.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion</H1> + <B>Michael Scherer</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C1308012738.24304.147.camel%40akroma.ephaone.org%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion">misc at zarb.org + </A><BR> + <I>Tue Jun 14 02:52:17 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005489.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005498.html">[Mageia-dev] perl 5.14 migration almost complete, 3 (non-cpan) modules to go - need help from their owner! +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5572">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5572">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5572">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5572">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Le lundi 13 juin 2011 à 05:04 -0700, Ron a écrit : +><i> > There is a limited set of options, and as you can see, none of your +</I>><i> > idea was not already explored by someone else. +</I>><i> It has all been done before, in that sense let's just close up shop and call it a day??? +</I> +Your first argument was "we should not do release, that's what all +others do". I just explained that not doing release is not a new idea. + +And maybe I misunderstood your ideas, but if the mere fact that we are +not alone on a segment is a reason to leave it because we cannot +compete, then since by your own word, Arch is doing well, why should we +try to compete too ? + +In fact, instead of telling what Arch does well, maybe you could start +to say where Arch is not doing well, and how you propose to do things to +do better if you want to convince there is room for another distribution +and room for improvement. + +Because if Arch is already fulfilling all your needs, I fail to see what +to do. So the first step would be to explain what Arch is not doing +right if you hope to convince us we can do better. + + +><i> > If everything move all days, you cannot : +</I>><i> > - translate software ( as the string will change every day ) +</I>><i> > - create documentation ( for the same reason ) +</I>><i> > - communicate ( as everything ca be broken at any time ) +</I>><i> > - ensure stability ( as each change can bring unstability ) +</I>><i> +</I>><i> > And for user, some do not want to redo training every week for +</I>><i> > their users, because libreoffice got updated, because ff 4 just arrived +</I>><i> > and 75% of extensions do not work, etc. +</I>><i> > +</I>><i> > In fact, the whole release model is basically what is used all >over the +</I>><i> > place, from lower level like kernel to higher level like kde. So >you can +</I>><i> > get lots of feedback on it. +</I>><i> You are correct on the release model being used everywhere, that fit's development +</I>><i> and really there is no other way to do it as it takes time. +</I>><i> But really, up stream does have to take time but package maintainers can pull things in pretty fast +</I>><i> and make things work. +</I> +Being myself a packager, and being a packager since a long time ( like 7 +years ), I feel that I have to disagree. While there isn't much breakage +on packaging side, we also suffer from bugs like upstream developers +does, mainly because we use the same software as them. We also develop +our own software ( like the installer, drakxtools, etc ). We also do +work on integration, etc. + +And I am a little bit disappointed to learn that my work as a packager +do not take time. I must maybe do it wrong, as it seems to be a real +work. + +><i> I don't understand what's being said here? Are we a community of users +</I>><i> or are we just teachers teaching a class? Help with changes is what +</I>><i> forums and people are for. +</I> +If people want changes, they either do it themselves, or they wait on +someone else to do. And waiting for someone else to do mean to convince +that someone. And that someone is everybody reading you on the list, +which also mean me. + +Wanting changes has never been sufficient for making them appear. We +wanted to have a change regarding Mandriva, we made it. + +><i> You worried about not being able to keep up with documentation? +</I>><i> I suggest you take a look at the Arch wiki, best Linux wiki +</I>><i> there is and things change fast... Again, community... +</I> +Then I would answer "just look at the ubuntu wiki" to see that the +quality of a wiki is not related to the release model of a +distribution. + +And when I say documentation, I was speaking of something like : +<A HREF="http://doc.mandriva.com/index.php">http://doc.mandriva.com/index.php</A> +or like this : +<A HREF="http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Installation_Guide/index.html">http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Installation_Guide/index.html</A> + +And so, since you didn't answer to the others points I made, shall I +assume they are valid concerns ? + +><i> > So basically, you suggest that since everybody is already doing +</I>><i> > it, this is useless. So the logical conclusion is we should drop +</I>><i> > the distribution ? +</I>><i> No that is not what I'm saying! +</I>><i> +</I>><i> What I am saying is that you have 100+/- distributions all going by a +</I>><i> release model and only a handful making rolling releases. +</I> +A majority of distributions developers have independently decided to use +a release model, so it is obviously something that is fulfilling their +needs as well as the need of a majority of users, no ? + + +><i> There is only one defacto maker of a rolling release and that is Arch, +</I>><i> why does this have to be? (Yes I know there are others but Arch is the +</I>><i> leader of the pack) +</I> +Technically, there is Gentoo, and derived distribution or Debian +Testing, and I know more people running Gentoo and Debian than Arch +users. I would even say that the *BSD and Slackware are a form of +rolling release, since they have a fixed small base system updated from +time to time, and a evolving upper level with updated software and +others stuff. + +In fact, if we look at the market share, the dominant unix system with a +rolling release model would be mac os X. + +( but I guess that you disagree with the fact that *BSD are a rolling +release, which is yet another reason to use a different and more clearer +term ). + +><i> >like debian testing ( and CUT ) ? suse tumbleweed ? arch linux +</I>><i> Nope, gotta call you on this... Debian testing rolls with the purpose of becoming a release... +</I>><i> Therefore things can grow outdated rather quickly. +</I> +Well, that's still rolling none the less. But as I said several time for +the previous discussion, rolling release is a term that people used to +designate different things. + +If things are too old, this is not rolling release ? +And if things are too broken, this is not rolling release either ? + + +><i> Suse tumblweed IS NOT going to be a true rolling release! It is going to "tumble up" to the +</I>><i> next release hence the name. +</I> +That's not exactly what they say on their wiki page : +<A HREF="http://fr.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed">http://fr.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed</A> +But maybe I didn't understood that, and maybe they didn't explained to +me when I asked the question 4 months ago. + +><i> > Very stable for a distribution mean "that do not change". That's +</I>><i> > incompatible with the idea of rolling per definition. And inorder +</I>><i> > to have stable software, you have to freeze them and fix bugs. So +</I>><i> > to have that on the whole distribution, you need to freeze the +</I>><i> > whole distribution for a time, and then ask for test, fix bugs +</I>><i> > and then release. Which is exactly what we currently do since >years. +</I>><i> Sorry, your wrong! I have been using Arch for years and have yet +</I>><i> to meet a show stopper bug, it is very stable. +</I>><i> Stability simply means tested! +</I> +When Debian people speak of the stable distribution, they mean it +doesn't change much. When Mandriva speak of the stable distribution, +they mean it doesn't change much. When we us that word for the +distribution, we mean the same. + +You use it differently, that's fine. But you cannot expect to be +understood if you use a different vocabulary than the people you are +talking with, unless you ask us to change our vocabulary to fit yours. + +><i> It does not have to be like Debian testing +</I>><i> that grows stale with time, you can remain very very close to bleeding +</I>><i> edge and still remain stable... +</I> +Debian testing is what you would call stable because the way it is +updated ( ie, no broken dependencies, no blocking bugs, waiting time +before updating ). + +><i> > So basically, you just reinvented the concept of release, and the +</I>><i> > way Mandriva, Debian, Fedora work since years. +</I>><i> And I must have peed in your cheerios... +</I> +I think there is no need to be vulgar. + +><i> I am all for giving people what they want, +</I>><i> I also don't think you have to follow the status quo to do so... We don't have +</I>><i> to be "just another distribution doing the same things the others are doing"... +</I>><i> Sorry, but this is what I see.... +</I> +Then I guess we do not see that way, but I guess also that being myself +involved in depth in the distribution and having participated since +years to Mandriva and having looked at others ( as said in the +introduction of my first mail ), I see details that you do not see +( such as the governance, the openness of various others areas besides +packaging, etc ). + +Now, you whole mail is "we should do like arch", and that's a motivation +that I do not understand. What do you expect us to bring that arch does +not bring for you ? What would be the added value ? + +-- +Michael Scherer + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005489.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005498.html">[Mageia-dev] perl 5.14 migration almost complete, 3 (non-cpan) modules to go - need help from their owner! +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5572">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5572">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5572">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5572">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |