[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion

Tue Jun 14 02:52:17 CEST 2011

Le lundi 13 juin 2011 à 05:04 -0700, Ron a écrit :
+> > There is a limited set of options, and as you can see, none of your 
+> > idea was not already explored by someone else.
+> It has all been done before, in that sense let's just close up shop and call it a day???
+
+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.
+
+
+> > If everything move all days, you cannot :
+> > - translate software ( as the string will change every day )
+> > - create documentation ( for the same reason )
+> > - communicate ( as everything ca be broken at any time )
+> > - ensure stability ( as each change can bring unstability )
+> 
+> > And for user, some do not want to redo training every week for 
+> > their users, because libreoffice got updated, because ff 4 just arrived 
+> > and 75% of extensions do not work, etc. 
+> >
+> > In fact, the whole release model is basically what is used all >over the
+> > place, from lower level like kernel to higher level like kde. So >you can
+> > get lots of feedback on it.
+> You are correct on the release model being used everywhere, that fit's development 
+> and really there is no other way to do it as it takes time. 
+> But really, up stream does have to take time but package maintainers can pull things in pretty fast 
+> and make things work.
+
+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 don't understand what's being said here? Are we a community of users 
+> or are we just teachers teaching a class? Help with changes is what 
+> forums and people are for. 
+
+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.
+
+> You worried about not being able to keep up with documentation? 
+> I suggest you take a look at the Arch wiki, best Linux wiki 
+> there is and things change fast... Again, community...
+
+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 :
+http://doc.mandriva.com/index.php 
+or like this :
+http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Installation_Guide/index.html
+
+And so, since you didn't answer to the others points I made, shall I
+assume they are valid concerns ? 
+
+> > So basically, you suggest that since everybody is already doing 
+> > it, this is useless. So the logical conclusion is we should drop 
+> > the distribution ?
+> No that is not what I'm saying!
+>
+> What I am saying is that you have 100+/- distributions all going by a 
+> release model and only a handful making rolling releases. 
+
+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 ?
+
+
+> There is only one defacto maker of a rolling release and that is Arch, 
+> why does this have to be? (Yes I know there are others but Arch is the 
+> leader of the pack)
+
+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 ).
+
+> >like debian testing ( and CUT ) ? suse tumbleweed ? arch linux
+> Nope, gotta call you on this... Debian testing rolls with the purpose of becoming a release... 
+> Therefore things can grow outdated rather quickly. 
+
+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 ? 
+
+
+> Suse tumblweed IS NOT going to be a true rolling release! It is going to "tumble up" to the 
+> next release hence the name.
+
+That's not exactly what they say on their wiki page : 
+http://fr.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
+But maybe I didn't understood that, and maybe they didn't explained to
+me when I asked the question 4 months ago.
+
+> > Very stable for a distribution mean "that do not change". That's
+> > incompatible with the idea of rolling per definition. And inorder 
+> > to have stable software, you have to freeze them and fix bugs. So 
+> > to have that on the whole distribution, you need to freeze the 
+> > whole distribution for a time, and then ask for test, fix bugs 
+> > and then release. Which is exactly what we currently do since >years.
+> Sorry, your wrong! I have been using Arch for years and have yet 
+> to meet a show stopper bug, it is very stable. 
+> Stability simply means tested! 
+
+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.
+
+> It does not have to be like Debian testing 
+> that grows stale with time, you can remain very very close to bleeding 
+> edge and still remain stable...
+
+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 ). 
+
+> > So basically, you just reinvented the concept of release, and the 
+> > way Mandriva, Debian, Fedora work since years. 
+> And I must have peed in your cheerios... 
+
+I think there is no need to be vulgar.
+
+> I am all for giving people what they want, 
+> I also don't think you have to follow the status quo to do so... We don't have 
+> to be "just another distribution doing the same things the others are doing"... 
+> Sorry, but this is what I see....
+
+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
+
+