1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20please%20stop%20doing%20%22bugs%22%20for%20updating%20magia%201&In-Reply-To=%3C201201121319.02572.bgmilne%40zarb.org%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="011277.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="011288.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1</H1>
<B>Buchan Milne</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20please%20stop%20doing%20%22bugs%22%20for%20updating%20magia%201&In-Reply-To=%3C201201121319.02572.bgmilne%40zarb.org%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1">bgmilne at zarb.org
</A><BR>
<I>Thu Jan 12 12:19:02 CET 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="011277.html">[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="011288.html">[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#11279">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#11279">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#11279">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#11279">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>On Thursday, 12 January 2012 11:27:59 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
><i> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:05:34 +0200
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Buchan Milne <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">bgmilne at zarb.org</A>> wrote:
</I>><i> > An approach that doens't include a bug filed with the distribution means
</I>><i> > the user doesn't really seem interested in receiving an update from the
</I>><i> > distribution.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Do note there are bugs that may go unnoticed by the user even though
</I>><i> they are affected (for example if they have to do with resource
</I>><i> consumption or subtle data corruption or other reliability stuff).
</I>
Right, and in most cases, upstreams should make enough noise about issues like
that so maintainers know to push an update. Upstreams that don't are
irresponsible, or have their heads in the ground.
><i> > If you just want every new piece of software as soon as possible, you
</I>><i> > should run Cauldron.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Obviously, that's not what I want.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> > 1)Why users who are not affected by some obscure bug (e.g. typo in a man
</I>><i> > page they will never read) should be forced to download unnecessary
</I>><i> > packages (at high cost in some cases)
</I>><i>
</I>><i> This is already the case. Regularly Mageia suggests me updates that I
</I>><i> have not asked for since I have not filed a bug for them (and may not
</I>><i> even be affected).
</I>
'users who are unaffected' and 'I didn't ask for an update' are vastly
different things. But, it seems you also don't want to get an unnecessarily
huge volume of updates ...
><i> Besides, your example is silly: I don't know of a software project that
</I>><i> makes new releases only to fix typos in man pages. Bugfix releases *do*
</I>><i> contain worthwhile fixes.
</I>
Sure, but on average, probably 75% or more of the software in a release will
have some upstream release that has at least one bugfix in it per year, does
that mean that we should ship updates to 75% of the packages for each
supported distro every year?
><i> > 2)How you will identify all upstreams which have a good history of
</I>><i> > bugfix-only releases, and how you will automate the selection of these
</I>><i> > packages to go to updates, and how you will streamline this process
</I>><i> > through QA.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Each packager can decide if their upstream package is well-behaved or
</I>><i> not. Of course, better be conservative and not package bugfix releases
</I>><i> if you aren't totally confident. Still, some upstream teams *are*
</I>><i> well-behaved.
</I>
Right, and this is (mostly) done, although IMHO the updates policy needs to be
updated to make this more explicit.
><i> > Anyway, you seem to be of the assumption that all the contributors to the
</I>><i> > distribution you are using have so much more time on their hands than you
</I>><i> > do, while in actual fact I believe almost all contributors are *very*
</I>><i> > contstrained on time.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Relying on upstream for bug fixes may actually free some of the time
</I>><i> spent doing custom patching and testing.
</I>
You assume:
1)Upstream and packager have no relationship
2)Bugfixes are done in isolation
><i> But I agree volunteer time is a
</I>><i> big blocker in most open source projects.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> > If you don't think it is worth your time to help out, why should we
</I>><i> > waste time (which could be used to ensure the next release has all
</I>><i> > bugfixes) on new bugfix releases we don't need?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Usually bugs are fixed for a reason (i.e. they affect someone
</I>><i> somewhere). Why you think people don't need bug fixes is beyond me:
</I>
That wasn't the argument. The argument is that there is a cost to every
update, and the question that has to be answered is whether the minimal
improvement in some package is worth the time, effort, resource, bandwidth
involved, or whether the user is better served by having a completely up-to-
date minimal-bug-affected-release 2 months later, than having 1000 updates
shipped every month and a new low quality release in 2 months, which forces
more updates down their expensive internet connection, leaving them with a
high cost, low quality experience.
><i> Mageia users aren't, presumably, more stupid / more careless than users
</I>><i> of other distributions.
</I>
No, but the point of Mageia is to provide a usable distribution, not one where
you get breakage every 2nd week due to supposed 'bugfix' releases of new
software.
Regards,
Buchan
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="011277.html">[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="011288.html">[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#11279">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#11279">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#11279">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#11279">[ 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>
|
