I was reading the Gnome release schedule and saw that Gnome 2.6.1 is going to be released very soon with a lot of bug fixes, some new translations and a few performance improvements and was curious if it is going to make it into FC2 or if a patched version of Gnome 2.6.0 will be used.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25� http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 16:36, David Wagoner wrote:
I was reading the Gnome release schedule and saw that Gnome 2.6.1 is going to be released very soon with a lot of bug fixes, some new translations and a few performance improvements and was curious if it is going to make it into FC2 or if a patched version of Gnome 2.6.0 will be used.
It'll likely be 2.6.0 + some patches from cvs since we're frozen by now.
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:23, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 16:36, David Wagoner wrote:
I was reading the Gnome release schedule and saw that Gnome 2.6.1 is going to be released very soon with a lot of bug fixes, some new translations and a few performance improvements and was curious if it is going to make it into FC2 or if a patched version of Gnome 2.6.0 will be used.
It'll likely be 2.6.0 + some patches from cvs since we're frozen by now.
Since the stable Gnome release series really seem pretty regression-safe (well, at least that's my impression of how the Gnome project is managed), would it be possible to get releases in the stable series as updates for FC2 even if they don't make it into the original release?
If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not the original packager to package a sane update.)
/Per
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:50:59PM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not the original packager to package a sane update.)
I think it's a bad idea to go down that road. Whole new Fedora Core releases are planned to be quite frequent; within each one, the packages should be as stable as possible.
On Sat, 1 May 2004, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:50:59PM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not the original packager to package a sane update.)
I think it's a bad idea to go down that road. Whole new Fedora Core releases are planned to be quite frequent; within each one, the packages should be as stable as possible.
I think that people who want 2.6.1 can make the packages and put them in fedora.us for cooking.
Oh while building gnome 2.6.1 packages (for my own use really, process is easy enough, update .spec and download new .tar.bz2's) i noticed that the current fedora gnome 2.6.0 already has a lot of patches downported from 2.6.1 (and a few of the 2.6.1 patches actually come from fedora development)
The difference between 'fedora gnome 2.6.0' and 'gnome 2.6.1' isnt as big as you would/might think.
-- Chris
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2004, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:50:59PM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not the original packager to package a sane update.)
I think it's a bad idea to go down that road. Whole new Fedora Core releases are planned to be quite frequent; within each one, the packages should be as stable as possible.
I think that people who want 2.6.1 can make the packages and put them in fedora.us for cooking.
On Sat, 1 May 2004, Chris Chabot wrote:
Oh while building gnome 2.6.1 packages (for my own use really, process is easy enough, update .spec and download new .tar.bz2's) i noticed that the current fedora gnome 2.6.0 already has a lot of patches downported from 2.6.1 (and a few of the 2.6.1 patches actually come from fedora development)
The difference between 'fedora gnome 2.6.0' and 'gnome 2.6.1' isnt as big as you would/might think.
The big difference is usually translations and similar items that have to be redone when version numbers change. Sometimes it is something small.. sometimes it is something ugly.
Hi,
On Sat, 2004-05-01 at 00:50, Per Bjornsson wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:23, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 16:36, David Wagoner wrote:
I was reading the Gnome release schedule and saw that Gnome 2.6.1 is going to be released very soon with a lot of bug fixes, some new translations and a few performance improvements and was curious if it is going to make it into FC2 or if a patched version of Gnome 2.6.0 will be used.
It'll likely be 2.6.0 + some patches from cvs since we're frozen by now.
Since the stable Gnome release series really seem pretty regression-safe (well, at least that's my impression of how the Gnome project is managed), would it be possible to get releases in the stable series as updates for FC2 even if they don't make it into the original release?
If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or because it takes time from new development?
Its about potential destabilisation, yes. Every code change, no matter how trivial it may seem, brings with it the risk of introducing regressions or weird side effects. Therefore, at this stage in the release cycle its good practise to weigh up the benefit each code change brings versus the potential for introducing other bugs.
Mass updating all of GNOME to 2.6.1 sounds like it should be safe, but each change in that update has a risk associated with it. The fun thing about risks is that they are cumulative so the chances are that something somewhere would break with the update and we have no way of anticipating how bad the breakage might be. Really, the best strategy at this point is just to backport important fixes.
Don't get me wrong, as many of us are the upstream maintainers we'd love to see us update to the latest packages, but doing so would not be exercising the appropriate risk management.
Cheers, Mark.
Em Terça, 4 de Maio de 2004 00:03, Mark McLoughlin escreveu:
Its about potential destabilisation, yes. Every code change, nomatter how trivial it may seem, brings with it the risk of introducing regressions or weird side effects. Therefore, at this stage in the release cycle its good practise to weigh up the benefit each code change brings versus the potential for introducing other bugs.
As much as I want Fedora to have great localizations, and the portuguese localization would probably benefict from the 2.6.0 -> 2.6.1 upgrade, I still remember this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Enabling the translation of mouse types names between the last beta and final release of RHL9 (what trouble can than cause?) had the side effect of making anaconda crash for several languages.
Pedro Morais
Hi,
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 10:24, Pedro Morais wrote:
Em Terça, 4 de Maio de 2004 00:03, Mark McLoughlin escreveu:
Its about potential destabilisation, yes. Every code change, nomatter how trivial it may seem, brings with it the risk of introducing regressions or weird side effects. Therefore, at this stage in the release cycle its good practise to weigh up the benefit each code change brings versus the potential for introducing other bugs.
As much as I want Fedora to have great localizations, and the portuguese localization would probably benefict from the 2.6.0 -> 2.6.1 upgrade, I still remember this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Enabling the translation of mouse types names between the last beta and final release of RHL9 (what trouble can than cause?) had the side effect of making anaconda crash for several languages.
Backporting translations from upstream is probably a fairly reasonable thing to do. But if we were to do that I'd like to have translation teams for each language be responsible for that work.
Just another item to put on the TODO list for when we have an external CVS ...
Cheers, Mark.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:13:39PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
thing to do. But if we were to do that I'd like to have translation teams for each language be responsible for that work.
Just another item to put on the TODO list for when we have an external CVS ...
Any reason for not just pushing 2.6.1 at some point ?
Hey,
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 19:20, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:13:39PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
thing to do. But if we were to do that I'd like to have translation teams for each language be responsible for that work.
Just another item to put on the TODO list for when we have an external CVS ...
Any reason for not just pushing 2.6.1 at some point ?
Look back over the thread :-)
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-May/msg00090.html
Basically, mass-updating to GNOME 2.6.1 at this point doesn't strike me as a particularly good exercise in in risk management, no matter how confident I am in GNOME's release process ...
Cheers, Mark.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 07:38:50PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Any reason for not just pushing 2.6.1 at some point ?
Look back over the thread :-)
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-May/msg00090.html
Basically, mass-updating to GNOME 2.6.1 at this point doesn't strike me as a particularly good exercise in in risk management, no matter how confident I am in GNOME's release process ...
Sorry - I didnt mean for the FC2 release I meant some time after when they have wandered through testing
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 19:52, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 07:38:50PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Any reason for not just pushing 2.6.1 at some point ?
Look back over the thread :-)
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-May/msg00090.html
Basically, mass-updating to GNOME 2.6.1 at this point doesn't strike me as a particularly good exercise in in risk management, no matter how confident I am in GNOME's release process ...
Sorry - I didnt mean for the FC2 release I meant some time after when they have wandered through testing
Yeah, I was mainly referring to post release too, although you could probably figure out something whereby the mass-update gets a lot of QA-ing before being pushed.
I'd be all for it, but it would be a rather large amount of work given the number packages involved and the relative little gain for doing it. I guess its something that people could easily help out with so once we have an external CVS we could certainly try and figure it out.
Cheers, Mark.
On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:59:53 +0100, Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com wrote:
Yeah, I was mainly referring to post release too, although you couldprobably figure out something whereby the mass-update gets a lot of QA-ing before being pushed.
I'd be all for it, but it would be a rather large amount of work giventhe number packages involved and the relative little gain for doing it. I guess its something that people could easily help out with so once we have an external CVS we could certainly try and figure it out.
From the sounds of things, this is an example of something that
would fit into the scope of Fedora Alternatives and certainly not Fedora Extras.
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/terminology.html
Which frankly, FA is very undefined and frought with inherent dangers that Fedora Extras, being a place for addons, mostly doesn't have to worry about. Issues like how to upgrade to a new FC release becomes much much more complicated once FA walks out of the vapor. And I haven't seen any noteworthy discussion how to keep FA sane and consistent. There's no reason to think that their couldn't be 17 different versions of the same package, all with different compile time options, sitting in FA for people to grab, can the update repo tools handle that? I'm even sure anyone's mental canons have swung around to even think about what Fedora Alternatives is actually going to look like yet.
-jef
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 14:38, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 19:20, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:13:39PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
thing to do. But if we were to do that I'd like to have translation teams for each language be responsible for that work.
Just another item to put on the TODO list for when we have an external CVS ...
Any reason for not just pushing 2.6.1 at some point ?
Look back over the thread :-)
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-May/msg00090.html
Basically, mass-updating to GNOME 2.6.1 at this point doesn't strike me as a particularly good exercise in in risk management, no matter how confident I am in GNOME's release process ...
I think 2.6.1 would be fine post-FC2-release, just put it in staging area for a bit and use it ourselves and if nothing horrible happens push it out as an update. Probably not a good idea during the freeze though. Basically, push 2.6.1 into Fedora when Fedora is in the same state that GNOME was in when GNOME pushed 2.6.1 in GNOME.
I saw someone mention that we may have some packages that aren't up to 2.6.0 though (epiphany perhaps?), we should be sure to fix those by Friday probably if there are any. Don't want to ship betas.
Havoc
Havoc Pennington wrote:
I think 2.6.1 would be fine post-FC2-release, just put it in staging area for a bit and use it ourselves and if nothing horrible happens push it out as an update. Probably not a good idea during the freeze though. Basically, push 2.6.1 into Fedora when Fedora is in the same state that GNOME was in when GNOME pushed 2.6.1 in GNOME.
I saw someone mention that we may have some packages that aren't up to 2.6.0 though (epiphany perhaps?), we should be sure to fix those by Friday probably if there are any. Don't want to ship betas.
Havoc
Rawhide: epiphany-1.1.12-0
http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/ Latest Stable: epiphany-1.2.4
If there are no objections I will go ahead and upgrade this probably tonight. I wanted to modify epiphany slightly along with redhat-menus, htmlview and mozilla for the final Preferred Application behavior fix for FC2.
Ok?
Warren Togami wtogami@redhat.com
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 22:21, Warren Togami wrote:
I wanted to modify epiphany slightly along with redhat-menus, htmlview and mozilla for the final Preferred Application behavior fix for FC2.
Thank you !!
tir, 04.05.2004 kl. 19.21 -1000, skrev Warren Togami:
Havoc Pennington wrote:
I think 2.6.1 would be fine post-FC2-release, just put it in staging area for a bit and use it ourselves and if nothing horrible happens push it out as an update. Probably not a good idea during the freeze though. Basically, push 2.6.1 into Fedora when Fedora is in the same state that GNOME was in when GNOME pushed 2.6.1 in GNOME.
I saw someone mention that we may have some packages that aren't up to 2.6.0 though (epiphany perhaps?), we should be sure to fix those by Friday probably if there are any. Don't want to ship betas.
Havoc
Rawhide: epiphany-1.1.12-0
http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/ Latest Stable: epiphany-1.2.4
Actually, epiphany is at 1.2.5 as of yesterday.
- Planner/mrproject could go up to 0.11 also I think? - libgtop in rawhide is at 2.5.2
And I hope to push 2.6.1 out this week assuming I get the last remaining tarballs sorted out.
Cheers Kjartan
Kjartan Maraas wrote :
- Planner/mrproject could go up to 0.11 also I think?
- libgtop in rawhide is at 2.5.2
From the "Packages Removed" section of the RELEASE-NOTES :
o libgtop -- No longer used by any Fedora Core application
Time to trash the archive if it's still there?
Matthias
ons, 05.05.2004 kl. 18.38 +0200, skrev Matthias Saou:
Kjartan Maraas wrote :
- Planner/mrproject could go up to 0.11 also I think?
- libgtop in rawhide is at 2.5.2
From the "Packages Removed" section of the RELEASE-NOTES :
o libgtop -- No longer used by any Fedora Core application
It's used by both gnome-system-monitor and gnome-applets AFAIK.
Cheers Kjartan
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 16:40, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
ons, 05.05.2004 kl. 18.38 +0200, skrev Matthias Saou:
Kjartan Maraas wrote :
- Planner/mrproject could go up to 0.11 also I think?
- libgtop in rawhide is at 2.5.2
From the "Packages Removed" section of the RELEASE-NOTES :
o libgtop -- No longer used by any Fedora Core applicationIt's used by both gnome-system-monitor and gnome-applets AFAIK.
I don't have an FC2 install handy right now, but on FC1 the current version was packaged as libgtop2 so that both 1.x and 2.x were parallel installable. gnome-system-monitor certainly works for me on FC2 tests to I'd wager libgtop2 is still around...
/Per
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 11:05, Per Bjornsson wrote:
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 16:40, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
ons, 05.05.2004 kl. 18.38 +0200, skrev Matthias Saou:
Kjartan Maraas wrote :
- Planner/mrproject could go up to 0.11 also I think?
- libgtop in rawhide is at 2.5.2
From the "Packages Removed" section of the RELEASE-NOTES :
o libgtop -- No longer used by any Fedora Core applicationIt's used by both gnome-system-monitor and gnome-applets AFAIK.
I don't have an FC2 install handy right now, but on FC1 the current version was packaged as libgtop2 so that both 1.x and 2.x were parallel installable. gnome-system-monitor certainly works for me on FC2 tests to I'd wager libgtop2 is still around...
Yep, this is correct. However I think it would make sense to rename libgtop2 back to libgtop now that the ver1 library package is to be expunged?
Regards, -Matt
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Alan Cox -
Alexander Larsson -
Chris Chabot -
David Wagoner -
Havoc Pennington -
Jef Spaleta -
Kjartan Maraas -
Mark McLoughlin -
Matt Hansen -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Saou -
Michael A. Peters -
Pedro Morais -
Per Bjornsson -
Stephen Smoogen -
Warren Togami