Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-25 Thread Chuck Anderson
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:18:54AM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote: On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: http://oswatershed.org/ Hmm some interesting data there and some looks wrong to me: I see openssh at 5.5p1 not 5.0p1. but some like apache ours is lagging by quite a bit

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-24 Thread Genes MailLists
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-24 Thread Genes MailLists
On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: ... rolling releases ... Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release cycle ... or not :-) http://oswatershed.org/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-24 Thread Genes MailLists
On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: ... rolling releases ... Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release cycle ... or not :-) http://oswatershed.org/

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-23 Thread Kevin Kofler
Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: So taking for example the much much discussed KDE rebases. I think that doing a KDE rebase for Fedora #+1 is a no brainer, for Fedora # is fine as long as it is properly tested and for Fedora #-1 KDE should NOT be

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-23 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Note that Fedora #-2 does not fit into this view for things at all, Fedora #-2 is meant to allow people to skip a Fedora release. But in practice I think this works out badly, because a relatively new Fedora release like Fedora 14

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-23 Thread Jesse Keating
On 11/23/10 12:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: They said that they install a Fedora for testing purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as they test the

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-23 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:39, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: They said that they install a Fedora for testing purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as they test the software in their environment.  Then,

Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: In short: Want higher-quality updates for previous releases? Then push version upgrades wherever possible (even and especially for libraries, as long as they're ABI-compatible or can be

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Genes MailLists
On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually rather suspect that would be a model that would work

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Genes MailLists
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: repo. * Whenever we move a bunch of packages from staging to stable we raise the minor number to M.(n+1). Larger changes may require major number bump if deemed appropriate (e.g.

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote: * A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it has not for some reason. Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product rather than an arbitrary timeline is an interesting one,

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Genes MailLists
On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote: * A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it has not for some reason. Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product rather

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:47 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote: On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote: * A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it has not for some reason. Why? Your idea

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Genes MailLists
On 11/22/2010 01:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Do you have any suggestions how to manage ensuring that each ISO snapshot has a working anaconda ? This is the kind of thing automated testing would help a lot with; we already have some automated testing of anaconda in place, but it doesn't

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:18:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: The way I see it, is we have: rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing) Fedora # Fedora #-1 Fedora #-2 Fedora #+1 is for people who want the

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread Jesse Keating
On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: They said that they install a Fedora for testing purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as they test the software in their environment. Then, the update pace slows down at about the same time their ready to push

Re: Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

2010-11-22 Thread mike cloaked
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:15 PM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:    Good point ... was thinking it was a way to ensure anaconda keeps pace but you're right ... it should follow the actual changes ...    Do