Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
Branko Badrljica bran...@avtomatika.com writes: 2. About using bugzilla- how the heck was I supposed to use it without net access ? If openrc did not start your networking, what was preventing you starting it yourself? Even if the upgrade also corrupted both sys-apps/net-tools and sys-apps/iproute2[1], you could have booted from a rescue/install CD/DVD/USB stick[2]. [1] Which I very much doubt. [2] Which I have had to do a couple of times when the system would not boot following an update or change I have made.
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
On 14.10.2009 03:17, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talking about new code that users have to *opt in* for (new net) that is only available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be documented up front is unreasonable. While true in general, I cannot agree with you in this case. This is not some random app we are talking about. It is a change in init scripts that might render our servers inaccessible if things go wrong. Please bear in mind that we have servers operating in datacenters in other countries and network loss is the worst kind of bug you can inflict upon us. There is no documantation upstream. At least we have some docs in g.o (kudos to whomever wrote it) but it is old (there is no mention of oldnet USE flag for example). And IUSE=... +oldnet ... is too fragile a solution. All I am saying is that this is a so important change that we should have gotten it right from the beginning. Openrc should not have been unmasked without proper documentation. -- Eray
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 02:12:03 Eray Aslan wrote: On 14.10.2009 03:17, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talking about new code that users have to *opt in* for (new net) that is only available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be documented up front is unreasonable. While true in general, I cannot agree with you in this case. This is not some random app we are talking about. It is a change in init scripts that might render our servers inaccessible if things go wrong. Please bear in mind that we have servers operating in datacenters in other countries and network loss is the worst kind of bug you can inflict upon us. people concerned with stability (i.e. headless dataservers) have no reason to be running unstable. server instability here is self-inflicted. There is no documantation upstream. At least we have some docs in g.o (kudos to whomever wrote it) but it is old (there is no mention of oldnet USE flag for example). And IUSE=... +oldnet ... is too fragile a solution. there is to a degree -- read conf.d/network. it might seem thin, but i think it's because new net is supposed to be thin. All I am saying is that this is a so important change that we should have gotten it right from the beginning. Openrc should not have been unmasked without proper documentation. always getting things right from the beginning is impossible. problems are found and rectified and we move on. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
On Wednesday 14 of October 2009 08:12:03 Eray Aslan wrote: [...] Please STOP already, all of you. There is only one important fact nobody seems to comprehend - new openrc was added to TESTING repository. That being said, if one uses packages from such repository (portage subtree, whatever), one *should* be ready to *grab* *the* *pieces* or *downgrade* when needed. Come on - it's not rocket science. OpenRC has been unmasked and put in testing subtree to gather feedback (sic!) - and users choosing testing repository are expected to use Gentoo bugzilla as it's the preferred way to provide such feedback - NOT gentoo-dev mailing list. Again, please stop all of you. Thanks in advance -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
[completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying] On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: Since the advent of outside overlays and layman, we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE releases, not to point the finger). If GNOME is involved, I would like you to point some fingers and tell us exactly where you think we went wrong; exactly which Great Unveiling are you talking about? If you don't tell us what we did wrong, you surely can't expect us to fix the problem :) All GNOME releases are incremental, so in 99% of the cases, the migration path is straightforward. If as an hppa arch dev, if you were inconvenienced, we would like to correct the problem since it would've definitely affected other archs too (and we know how understaffed you guys are :) -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
Dne středa 14 Říjen 2009 13:19:42 Nirbheek Chauhan napsal(a): [completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying] On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: Since the advent of outside overlays and layman, we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE releases, not to point the finger). If GNOME is involved, I would like you to point some fingers and tell us exactly where you think we went wrong; exactly which Great Unveiling are you talking about? If you don't tell us what we did wrong, you surely can't expect us to fix the problem :) All GNOME releases are incremental, so in 99% of the cases, the migration path is straightforward. If as an hppa arch dev, if you were inconvenienced, we would like to correct the problem since it would've definitely affected other archs too (and we know how understaffed you guys are :) Actualy i would like to hear what we in KDE did too, we publish into the tree as 0 days bump mostly since 4.2 and 4.1 was in the tree right away when we had working configuration. But aparently thats not enough... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: [completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying] On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: Since the advent of outside overlays and layman, we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE releases, not to point the finger). If GNOME is involved, I would like you to point some fingers and tell us exactly where you think we went wrong; exactly which Great Unveiling are you talking about? If you don't tell us what we did wrong, you surely can't expect us to fix the problem :) New dev-libs/glib, x11-libs/gtk+ and possible some other core libraries should be in tree (package.masked perhaps) so users and developers can help testing them. The current way they are moved from overlay into ~arch is forcing them to be tested, where as having them in tree now, would allow people who *want* to test them to do so. (I'm not pointing fingers, or blaming. That's just my humble view.)
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: New dev-libs/glib, x11-libs/gtk+ and possible some other core libraries should be in tree (package.masked perhaps) so users and developers can help testing them. The current way they are moved from overlay into ~arch is forcing them to be tested, where as having them in tree now, would allow people who *want* to test them to do so. I'm not aware of any bugs related to new glib/gtk+ breaking packages in recent times. Probably because Mart (leio) does a really good job of combing through the ChangeLogs and making sure that there aren't any regressions. For instance, with gtk+-2.18, there are major changes which break rendering in apps[1], so it won't be brazenly added to tree (likely will get a p.mask like you say). However, glib-2.22 has no such changes, and will be the first thing to get added to tree as ~arch part of GNOME 2.28. 1. Client-Side windows (csw) /will/ break apps; there has been extensive testing upstream, but breakage is inevitable. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
Mark Loeser schrieb: Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org said: On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talking about new code that users have to *opt in* for (new net) that is only available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be documented up front is unreasonable. no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documented, just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for unstable. your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainly apply to stable though. I'd say this isn't correct. Unstable isn't a pure testing playground. its meant for packages that should be considered for stable. As such, we should make sure that we get the documentation needed ready, so we can make sure that it is correct for people that are testing the upgrade path for us. It then gives us a chance to correct our documentation before it goes stable. All this comes down to is laziness in documenting changes, and forcing stuff upon our users. Neither of those things is good, and if everyone thinks that's the status quo...that really should change. I disagree with you. Unstable/TESTING tree is for new packages and package versions, which where until then not widely tested. With adding them, you can get more feedback and can filter out versions, which might be good enough to go into stable. THEN you should write the needed details for an upgrade to this version. And people using TESTING are free to tell about their upgrade and helping with improving the information. But there are and will always be versions, which will never meet the stable tree and are only there for users, who want to test the latest version. And our manpower is limited. It would be some nice ideal world, if everything even in TESTING tree would be completly documented. But if you require something like that, please show us the people, who have enough time and knowledge to be able to do this part. I have only a limited amount of time. And if i am required to write more docs, it would mean that i can maintain less packages/help less projects/users/potential new devs preparing their quizzes. I bet its the same for most of our team. In the end, i require TESTING users to be able to recover and to be able to report bugs via bugzilla, even if the packages are not fully documented as written previously. And in this special case, openrc had a sane default for the useflag, a useflag description and a warning, if the useflag is disabled. And until now, we only had exactly 1 user, who complained about the default version, but without giving us enough details neither here nor via bugzilla. So in this part, i fully support Matthias (zzam) and Mike (vapier): A sane version with good default and basic information was added (thanks Matthias for that!) and it seems to work without problems this way for all users except those, who are unable or unwilling to fill a bug with needed details. And we are not able to help those users. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
Branko Badrljica schrieb: Mike Frysinger wrote: the mailing list is not bugzilla. any complaints you have about USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread. it's a bug and should be treated as such. -mike Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such changes in future. I was told that new openrc is surely fine because it works for some group of people, that obviously includes developer. It is not enough, and please, don't keep such things in the future in more or less closed circles of your pals. Even simple WARNING!!! Big changes, untested, not(yet) documented! would be nice. I know what arch~ _should_ mean, but you know what it actually means. So, a little bit of pragmatic flexibility here would certainly decrease amount of raining urine and improve Gentoo's likability. Using TESTING packages actually means the above big warning. But do you really want to annoy every user with such a message everywhere, just because some people expect TESTING tree to be similar save as stable tree? -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
