GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12 for F20 when it's released.
Elad Alfassa elad@fedoraproject.org wrote:
GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12 for F20 when it's released.
-- -Elad Alfassa.
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Speaking personally, I'd like it if we could ship 3.12 as an update - if it doesn't have any really big surprises, compared to 3.10, I'll have to go back and check - and ship 3.14 with f21, getting back on our nice old 'cadence' (sorry, couldn't resist...) with GNOME.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Elad Alfassa elad@fedoraproject.org wrote:
GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12 for F20 when it's released.
Speaking personally, I'd like it if we could ship 3.12 as an update - if it doesn't have any really big surprises, compared to 3.10, I'll have to go back and check - and ship 3.14 with f21, getting back on our nice old 'cadence' (sorry, couldn't resist...) with GNOME.
If we are going to do that we should wait for 3.12.1 (end of April) to get some testing (ex. in rawhide) and bugs fixed in the mean time.
For the reference, here's the feature list https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features In addition to that from what I've seen in blogs there are more headerbar improvements, new gedit design, new nautilus design, and probably more things I forgot to mention or aren't there yet but might be added by the time it releases.
The only "big" changes are Nautilus and gedit which might be a bit surprising for people because they are vastly different from what we have right now, but over-all I still think it should be an update in F20.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.comwrote:
Elad Alfassa elad@fedoraproject.org wrote:
GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12 for F20 when it's released.
Speaking personally, I'd like it if we could ship 3.12 as an update - if it doesn't have any really big surprises, compared to 3.10, I'll have to go back and check - and ship 3.14 with f21, getting back on our nice old 'cadence' (sorry, couldn't resist...) with GNOME. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin DOT net http://www.happyassassin.net
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 21:02 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
For the reference, here's the feature list https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features
In addition to that from what I've seen in blogs there are more headerbar improvements, new gedit design, new nautilus design, and probably more things I forgot to mention or aren't there yet but might be added by the time it releases.
The only "big" changes are Nautilus and gedit which might be a bit surprising for people because they are vastly different from what we have right now, but over-all I still think it should be an update in F20.
It would probably be best to run it by FESCo, I guess - I think technically you'd need to do that to get an update policy exception anyway. It would be good to handle it with care and relatively slowly, but just 'losing' an entire release would kinda suck.
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 21:02 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
For the reference, here's the feature list https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features
In addition to that from what I've seen in blogs there are more headerbar improvements, new gedit design, new nautilus design, and probably more things I forgot to mention or aren't there yet but might be added by the time it releases.
Hm, Nautilus hasn't seen much more than bugfixes since 3.6. There's indeed a bold new design, but it has not been implemented and surely won't be in 3.12. Nobody's going to care about the Nautilus update.
gedit will be a very major change, though. A lot of GNOME users will love it. Many will not.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@gnome.orgwrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 21:02 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
For the reference, here's the feature list https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features
In addition to that from what I've seen in blogs there are more headerbar improvements, new gedit design, new nautilus design, and probably more things I forgot to mention or aren't there yet but might be added by the time it releases.
Hm, Nautilus hasn't seen much more than bugfixes since 3.6. There's indeed a bold new design, but it has not been implemented and surely won't be in 3.12. Nobody's going to care about the Nautilus update.
gedit will be a very major change, though. A lot of GNOME users will love it. Many will not.
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Okay, so in that case the only big UI change is gedit, that means getting the exception would be easier since most of the UI will stay the same.
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:38 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
It would probably be best to run it by FESCo, I guess - I think technically you'd need to do that to get an update policy exception anyway. It would be good to handle it with care and relatively slowly, but just 'losing' an entire release would kinda suck.
Another option would be to provide GNOME 3.12 in a COPR repository, which would mean users have the choice to stick with 3.10 or upgrade to 3.12. The downside would be more maintenance work for GNOME packagers since they would need to support 3.10 in Fedora proper and they would probably also want to provide bug fixes and updates to 3.12 in the COPR repository.
Tadej
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 07:51:04PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Speaking personally, I'd like it if we could ship 3.12 as an update - if it doesn't have any really big surprises, compared to 3.10, I'll have to go back and check - and ship 3.14 with f21, getting back on our nice old 'cadence' (sorry, couldn't resist...) with GNOME.
If we are going to do that we should wait for 3.12.1 (end of April) to get some testing (ex. in rawhide) and bugs fixed in the mean time.
This sounds good to me. If we are going to make a big mid-release update, though, it would also be nice to make some extra effort to work with extension authors to make sure extensions which work in 3.10 work in 3.12. (With what I'm seeing in 3.11 in Rawhide so far, this shouldn't be too hard, but I don't know what other major changes are planned that might be problematic.)
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 16:42 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 21:02 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
For the reference, here's the feature list https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features
In addition to that from what I've seen in blogs there are more headerbar improvements, new gedit design, new nautilus design, and probably more things I forgot to mention or aren't there yet but might be added by the time it releases.
Hm, Nautilus hasn't seen much more than bugfixes since 3.6. There's indeed a bold new design, but it has not been implemented and surely won't be in 3.12. Nobody's going to care about the Nautilus update.
gedit will be a very major change, though. A lot of GNOME users will love it. Many will not.
How tied-in is gedit? Could we keep it at 3.10 and bump everything else to 3.12, and maybe provide gedit 3.12 in a COPR for those who want it (if we don't go with the all-of-3.12 in a COPR plan)?
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Tadej Janež tadej.janez@tadej.hicsalta.siwrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:38 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
It would probably be best to run it by FESCo, I guess - I think technically you'd need to do that to get an update policy exception anyway. It would be good to handle it with care and relatively slowly, but just 'losing' an entire release would kinda suck.
Another option would be to provide GNOME 3.12 in a COPR repository, which would mean users have the choice to stick with 3.10 or upgrade to 3.12. The downside would be more maintenance work for GNOME packagers since they would need to support 3.10 in Fedora proper and they would probably also want to provide bug fixes and updates to 3.12 in the COPR repository.
Tadej
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
I'm against COPRing GNOME 3.12 due to the maintenance burden it will create, and the lack of QA stages (updates-testing) in COPR. If we COPR gnome 3.12, and then have to issue a minor update to it, that update will not undergo the usual fedora QA procedure of having to wait a week on testing or get 3 positive votes to be delivered to users.
Also, COPR is now a verb.
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 15:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
How tied-in is gedit? Could we keep it at 3.10 and bump everything else to 3.12, and maybe provide gedit 3.12 in a COPR for those who want it (if we don't go with the all-of-3.12 in a COPR plan)?
I'm not a gedit expert, but this seems like it should be easy as long as you don't also update all the associated gedit-* packages. The plugins API has changed, so 3.12 plugins may not work with 3.10 gedit and vice versa.
(Personally, I'd like to see gedit updated too, but I understand it might be best to not.)
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 02:16 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
I'm against COPRing GNOME 3.12 due to the maintenance burden it will create, and the lack of QA stages (updates-testing) in COPR.
I also think this would be a bad idea. Ubuntu and openSUSE have both gone down the alternate repository path already and we've seen that result in lower-quality software and frustration for users who enable them. Best to do a normal update.
It would probably be best to run it by FESCo, I guess - I think technically you'd need to do that to get an update policy exception anyway. It would be good to handle it with care and relatively slowly, but just 'losing' an entire release would kinda suck.
Another option would be to provide GNOME 3.12 in a COPR repository, which would mean users have the choice to stick with 3.10 or upgrade to 3.12. The downside would be more maintenance work for GNOME packagers since they would need to support 3.10 in Fedora proper and they would probably also want to provide bug fixes and updates to 3.12 in the COPR repository.
Tadej
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
I'm against COPRing GNOME 3.12 due to the maintenance burden it will create, and the lack of QA stages (updates-testing) in COPR. If we COPR gnome 3.12, and then have to issue a minor update to it, that update will not undergo the usual fedora QA procedure of having to wait a week on testing or get 3 positive votes to be delivered to users.
I suggest upping it to something more like 10 positive votes for such a large bump as there's things like soname bumps in Evolution and a bunch of other pretty big bumps (gobject-introspection etc) as part of the release that could conceivably affect other parts of the distro.
Peter
10 votes for the big one, but 3 votes for bugfix updates that will come afterwards. If we do go the COPR way we won't have this system, And that's a major disadvantage.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
and a
bunch of other pretty big bumps (gobject-introspection etc)
To what gobject-introspection bump are you referring?
On 01/25/2014 06:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Speaking personally, I'd like it if we could ship 3.12 as an update - if it doesn't have any really big surprises, compared to 3.10, I'll have to go back and check - and ship 3.14 with f21, getting back on our nice old 'cadence' (sorry, couldn't resist...) with GNOME.
Let's not forget about Wayland integration
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 10:42 +0000, Colin Walters wrote:
To what gobject-introspection bump are you referring?
For about a month now (maybe a bit less than that), every run of giscan produces tons of warnings about syntax errors. Maybe not a bump per se, but a couple modules are broken because of it (I cannot remember which).
E.g. I built gobject-introspection from git master this morning and want to build librsvg. What I see here is representative of every other module that uses gobject-introspection:
GISCAN Rsvg-2.0.gir /home/mcatanzaro/jhbuild/src/librsvg/<stdin>:1: syntax error, unexpected LONG in '# 1 "<stdin>"' at 'long' /home/mcatanzaro/jhbuild/src/librsvg/<stdin>:1: syntax error, unexpected OBJECT_MACRO, expecting identifier or '(' or '*' or ';' in '# 1 "<stdin>"' at '#define __PTRDIFF_TYPE__'
<snip, it's about 4000 lines of errors when word-wrapped>
/usr/include/cairo/cairo.h:74: syntax error, unexpected identifier in '#define CAIRO_VERSION_STRINGIZE_(major,minor,micro) #major"."#minor"."#micro' at 'major' /usr/include/cairo/cairo.h:76: syntax error, unexpected identifier in '#define CAIRO_VERSION_STRINGIZE(major,minor,micro) CAIRO_VERSION_STRINGIZE_(major, minor, micro)' at 'CAIRO_VERSION_STRINGIZE_' /home/mcatanzaro/jhbuild/src/librsvg/rsvg.h:241: syntax error, unexpected identifier in '#undef __RSVG_RSVG_H_INSIDE__' at 'undef'
----- Original Message -----
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Elad Alfassa elad@fedoraproject.org wrote:
GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12 for F20 when it's released.
Speaking personally, I'd like it if we could ship 3.12 as an update - if it doesn't have any really big surprises, compared to 3.10, I'll have to go back and check - and ship 3.14 with f21, getting back on our nice old 'cadence' (sorry, couldn't resist...) with GNOME.
If we are going to do that we should wait for 3.12.1 (end of April) to get some testing (ex. in rawhide) and bugs fixed in the mean time.
This is the way how we handle KDE Plasma Workspaces updates - we wait for some time for .1/.2 release, it's tested in side repository, then it goes to updates-testing, no autokarma. FESCo granted this exception.
It works pretty well now but yes, KDE4 is in maintenance mode now, so underlying bits changes are limited now, only apps are being worked on. But we do it this way forever - in the very beginning of 4.x era it caused some troubles but it was the must - as the first releases were pretty broken.
Jaroslav
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 19:28 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12 for F20 when it's released.
Sorry for being late to this discussion. My plan so far was to go for the stable release at the time, which would be 3.12.2 or 3.12.3. We've done the same in f20. It works out well for Fedora, I think - we get a fairly stable, well-translated GNOME. It works out less well for GNOME - to some extent, we lose testing and timely exposure in one of the major downstreams if the GNOME and Fedora schedules move too far apart. It seems that the current f21 schedule is somewhat pessimal from that perspective. So maybe we should indeed look at copr for providing 3.13 development releases before rawhide branches off for f22.
I'm not sure if providing 3.12 as an update for f20 is a great idea - its not something we've done before. It will certainly eat some resources both on development and qa. But if there are volunteers who are willing to help out, we can discuss it. Thankfully, we don't have to rush it - we can stage it and only push it out if it looks solid. Trying out coprs for that staging might be interesting, if only to work out how to do qa on copr content thats destined for mainline Fedora...
Matthias
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:45:36AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I'm not sure if providing 3.12 as an update for f20 is a great idea - its not something we've done before. It will certainly eat some resources both on development and qa. But if there are volunteers who are willing to help out, we can discuss it. Thankfully, we don't have to rush it - we can stage it and only push it out if it looks solid. Trying out coprs for that staging might be interesting, if only to work out how to do qa on copr content thats destined for mainline Fedora...
+1 to that -- if people are interested in pursuing this approach, it makes a great real-world experiment with practical results.
Hi all,
Is there any chance of creating a repository with this week's Gnome 3.12 beta release? I'm not a Fedora maintainer but I'd love to help in any way that I can.
Cheers,
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 19:28 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12 for F20 when it's released.
Sorry for being late to this discussion. My plan so far was to go for the stable release at the time, which would be 3.12.2 or 3.12.3. We've done the same in f20. It works out well for Fedora, I think - we get a fairly stable, well-translated GNOME. It works out less well for GNOME - to some extent, we lose testing and timely exposure in one of the major downstreams if the GNOME and Fedora schedules move too far apart. It seems that the current f21 schedule is somewhat pessimal from that perspective. So maybe we should indeed look at copr for providing 3.13 development releases before rawhide branches off for f22.
I'm not sure if providing 3.12 as an update for f20 is a great idea - its not something we've done before. It will certainly eat some resources both on development and qa. But if there are volunteers who are willing to help out, we can discuss it. Thankfully, we don't have to rush it - we can stage it and only push it out if it looks solid. Trying out coprs for that staging might be interesting, if only to work out how to do qa on copr content thats destined for mainline Fedora...
Matthias
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:01 -0300, Evandro Giovanini wrote:
Hi all,
Is there any chance of creating a repository with this week's Gnome 3.12 beta release? I'm not a Fedora maintainer but I'd love to help in any way that I can.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107928060492923463788/posts/LmPUMRJVFP6
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.comwrote:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107928060492923463788/posts/LmPUMRJVFP6
Great news, thanks!
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org