[Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle?

Fri Oct 15 06:32:13 CEST 2010

On 15 October 2010 04:48, Fernando Parra <gato2707 at yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
+> Hi everybody.
+>
+> I feel that the concept of a new way, as it exist into my mind is not completely understood. Let me try to re-explain again. Please be patient and excuses any mistake with my English (I'm totally out of practice):
+>
+> I'm talking about to liberate to novice/novel/without experience user, about concepts like backports, but I'm not talking about close/disappear/eliminate/forgot backports.
+>
+> Why? because a big share of them will arrive from a very different environment (especially windows), and as you now, in there those concepts are not only estrange, they simply don't exists.
+> When a Windows user wants/needs to update a program, as much the only thing that he/she must do is unninstall the old/previous version and then install the new one.
+>
+> What programs? Following the same idea, about these kind of users, we should ask: what programs they usually upgrade? The answer could be found asking to the user's themselves, but certainly could be another ways.
+>
+> Why not all backports? Reason 1: Because a lot of them don't care about the new version of CUPS (in example) or the new version of Maxima (I'm sure there are a lot clearly examples).
+> Reason 2: Because there are packages that may causes some incidents after upgrade them.
+>
+> How we can solve this situation? Offering a default automatic upgrade for a small group of packages, especially when they change in an important way, in example Firefox 3.6x 3.6x+ or to 4.x
+>
+> With this in mind:
+>
+>> What aspects of the Mandriva backports solution are not satisfactory?
+>
+>> -The fact that not everything is available as a backport?
+>
+> Not all are in backports, more these users don't want/understand a big share of them
+>
+>> -That users don't know how to request a backport?
+>
+> That is true, more, they don't want to learn about that, they only want a new version of their favourite program.
+>
+>> -That too many backports are available?
+>
+> This is matter of who are revising backports, for novice? Yes there are to many. For the geek or the expert? Maybe never there will enough of them.
+>
+>> -That all users don't get them by default?
+>> -That users doing network installs by default don't get the backport on
+>> initial installation?
+>
+> No, they are not get them if we will use a potentially problematic repository.
+>
+>> -That users aren't aware of backports?
+>> -Something else?
+>
+> Panic? Fear? Baal, Luzbel and other demons in their minds?
+>
+>> Technically speaking?
+>> Less than 'urpmi --searchmedia Backports chromium' ?
+>
+> If I was a novice my answer will be: What hell is that?
+>
+>> Again, before we can decide what *more* we should do (what significant
+>> resources we need to commit), maybe we should first understand why the
+>> existing features (which have significant effort behind them) are not
+>> resulting in user satisfaction.
+>
+> More and more reasons to prepare very carefully our offer. All we here appreciate those efforts and there are no way to send them to trash
+>
+>> Personally I think a poll without educating everyone about what exactly
+>> each choice would mean is useless. We first need to elaborate detailed
+>> alternatives before anyone can make an informed choice.
+>
+> IMHO, a democracy without education is not democracy, is populism. I agree at all, we need first elaborate a well structured alternatives and then, explicitly after inform and educate our community we can run a poll, or prepare a council, or any other appropriated way.
+>
+>> backports should be supported for security patches and bug fixes just like
+>> the main packages (if not instead of the main packages).
+>> Of course the security patch could be simply provided by backporting a
+>> newer version of the package, no need to make patches for each version.
+>
+> That is essential, any upgrade must be supported (other valid reason for an small group of packages).
+>
+>> What I mean is basically when new updates get presented (which would
+>> include new backports) the user could untick specific packages (as is
+>> possible now) but also have a second tick-box to store the choice
+>> permanently in the skip.list.
+>> This would give the user more choice of which packages he wants to always
+>> update to the newest version and wich ones he/she prefers to keep frozen
+>> at the same version.
+>
+> Please try to explain that to my grandma, or maybe you could be lucky with some of my students.
+>
+>> New users who frequented the forums always got to know what backports
+>> are pretty fast. And bugzilla is the perfect system for asking for a
+>> backport, that worked pretty good.
+>
+> These users are walking to change into intermediate users, they are no longer basic users. This only for the simple fact that they are posting in a technical forum. Let me remind you: 1,300 millions of Hispanics and only 130 votes at the BlogDrake poll.
+>
+>> I was thinking about writing a proposal as you suggested, but so far I
+>> haven't found the time.
+>> I don't think this is that urgent, since backports only become an issue
+>> once we have the first release out, but I will try to write up a
+>> proposal well before that.
+>
+> I'm writing a proposal as Tux99 does, I need find time for finish it and then translate it.
+>
+> Regards from México
+> --
+> Fernando Parra <gato2707 at yahoo.com.mx>
+>
+
+Your reply doesn't show whom you're quoting. Please pay more attention
+to show whom you're quoting when quoting others' posts :)
+
+-- 
+Ahmad Samir
+