Rolling release Fedora - fantastic idea

[Andrew Wyatt]

I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
weigh in.

First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15,
16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left
at it's core with much success.

Some potential reasons why it would be a good idea.. A lot of us don't
like to risk a major upgrade every 6 months to a year, or reinstall. We
can always save a dump of rpms, and not format /home but still, that's a
lot of unnecessary work. If you aren't in a position to do a full
backup (right or wrong) it becomes even more of a challenge.

It's also very convenient to upgrade to Firefox 9 for example without
having to go to Remi, or spend hours upgrading everything. If it rolls,
everything gets upgraded over time. Huge convenience factor here.

I just pulled LibreOffice 3.4.4 from Fedora 16 down to Fuduntu. I'm
also shipping Firefox 9.

If you were interested in going forward with a rolling release model,
your community is large enough that it doesn't have to be your core
product. It could though be the foundation for your core product.

I'd recommend continuing your release cycle, shifting to rolling Fedora,
and point release from that.

Rawhide IMHO is "rolling", but it's also very unstable, as you all well
know.

The idea thrown out there that discussed using a waterfall repository
method is solid, we have been doing it for over year now.

Development, Rawhide - done.

Testing - Reasonably stable, packages promoted from development when
they are ready.

Stable - After you have tested the packages with a reasonably wide
audience, promote them to stable.

Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18, 19.
This model been working for us for a short while now.

You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some of
the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of
it. Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing
some things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful
with a rolling release.

As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3 via
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins and
remixes are for.

That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is already
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome to
come help out at Fuduntu. :D

[Kevin Kofler]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15,
16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu

You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please leave us in
peace!

Post by Andrew Wyatt
which still has a lot of 14 left at it's core with much success.

Yikes! Are you SURE your fork is not full of unfixed security holes?

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Some potential reasons why it would be a good idea.. A lot of us don't
like to risk a major upgrade every 6 months to a year, or reinstall. We
can always save a dump of rpms, and not format /home but still, that's a
lot of unnecessary work. If you aren't in a position to do a full
backup (right or wrong) it becomes even more of a challenge.

You don't need a backup to do an upgrade. Sure, it's recommended, but an
upgrade actually does not attack your data in any way. (A reinstall does if
exercised poorly. But IMHO upgrades are the better option anyway. I
personally like the direct yum method.)

Post by Andrew Wyatt
It's also very convenient to upgrade to Firefox 9 for example without
having to go to Remi, or spend hours upgrading everything.

Firefox 9 was also pushed as an update for Fedora 15, which was the oldest
Fedora release supported at the time of its release.

(It's time to get used to the fact that Fedora 14 is DEAD. If you're still
shipping Fedora 14 packages to your users, YOU are responsible for
backporting all the relevant security fixes!)

Post by Andrew Wyatt
If you were interested in going forward with a rolling release model,
your community is large enough that it doesn't have to be your core
product. It could though be the foundation for your core product.


 which would mean older packages in our stable releases, because they'd
first have to go through the rolling release, whereas currently we branch
the stable releases directly from Rawhide.

It also neglects the fact that it's actually MORE work to prepare a major
migration for a rolling release than to prepare it for a new release, where
users are prepared for having to manually deal with migration issues and
where they can decide to hold off upgrading until the warts are fixed. (And
that's assuming that the migration issues can be solved in a way which makes
it safe to push such a change as a routine update at all. IMHO, things like
GNOME 3 won't ever qualify.) If such troublesome migrations didn't exist,
you wouldn't still ship "a lot of 14" in your fork! So it'd be entirely
counterproductive to require the changes in the rolling release first, and
it'd hold back the progress of our regular releases.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Rawhide IMHO is "rolling", but it's also very unstable, as you all well
know.

And I think this cannot be "fixed".

Post by Andrew Wyatt
As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3 via
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins and
remixes are for.

So it's fine if I magically morph your Rolls Royce into a Trabant after
putting some fine print on some web site "communicating" the change? ^^

In case you don't understand the comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Motor_Cars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

Post by Andrew Wyatt
That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is already
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome to
come help out at Fuduntu. :D

Good luck! ^^

Kevin Kofler

[Andrew Wyatt]

Post by Kevin Kofler
You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please leave
us in peace!
Good luck! ^^
Kevin Kofler

Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.

[Matthew Garrett]

Post by Andrew Wyatt

Post by Kevin Kofler
You can make your fork of Fedora roll all you want, but please
leave us in peace!
Good luck! ^^
Kevin Kofler

Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.

Just as a reminder, everyone taking part in Fedora is expected to follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct -
I appreciate that Kevin's response was inflammatory, but there's no need
to go further than that.

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.

Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.

Next time try to "be excellent to each other." Two things I personally get tired of reading. A rhetorical question comes to mind "Would you rather he was excellent to you and lied saying it's a splendid idea when he feels differently just to spare hurting your feelings?" Kevin represents himself not Fedora. He is an individual and is free to his opinions.

The rolling release idea comes up annually and a lot of developers/contributors get tired of wasting time sending and reading emails about it. Another is a long term release, I can't count how many times that has come up in the last few years. I'll not apologize for Kevin's response because honestly, I agree with him.

-- Bob

[Andrew Wyatt]

Post by Andrew Wyatt

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.

Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Next time try to "be excellent to each other." Two things I personally get tired of reading. A rhetorical question comes to mind "Would you rather he was excellent to you and lied saying it's a splendid idea when he feels differently just to spare hurting your feelings?" Kevin represents himself not Fedora. He is an individual and is free to his opinions.
The rolling release idea comes up annually and a lot of developers/contributors get tired of wasting time sending and reading emails about it. Another is a long term release, I can't count how many times that has come up in the last few years. I'll not apologize for Kevin's response because honestly, I agree with him.
-- Bob

I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response with
"just go away".

There is a difference between disagreeing, and being an asshat.

Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of developers"
feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism of the idea.

If you "can't count" how many times it has come up, perhaps you should
investigate it because there is obviously potential in the idea.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
Andrew Wyatt <andrew at fuduntu.org> wrote:

...snip...

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of
developers" feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism
of the idea.
If you "can't count" how many times it has come up, perhaps you
should investigate it because there is obviously potential in the
idea.

I think the way forward is the one I outlined in:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html

Until those interested can organize and present a compelling case, I
fear threads like this one aren't too much use.

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120128/bdffeac8/attachment.sig>

[Andrew Wyatt]

Post by Kevin Fenzi
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
...snip...

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of
developers" feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism
of the idea.
If you "can't count" how many times it has come up, perhaps you
should investigate it because there is obviously potential in the
idea.

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html
Until those interested can organize and present a compelling case, I
fear threads like this one aren't too much use.
kevin

+1

I don't have time to champion something like this with all of my other
responsibilities but I would be happy to contribute should such a
project come to exist.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120128/ddaf4014/attachment.html>

[Genes MailLists]

Post by Kevin Fenzi
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
...snip...

...

Post by Kevin Fenzi
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html
Until those interested can organize and present a compelling case, I
fear threads like this one aren't too much use.

Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the RH
business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
setting, this is quite likely not to go too far .. and so far I'm not
aware of much support for this ..

This can of course be because these key folk, after careful
consideration, do not see it as a viable choice to make for Fedora
and/or ultimately its impact on RHEL.

They are, after all, key players for good reason(s) ... I cannot
imagine they are not familiar with the pros/cons of such an approach.

The benefits/drawbacks of a rolling release are rather well known
these days (notwithstanding those that somehow still believe rawhide is
a rolling release .. :-) )...

Given that, do folks still believe it could be worthwhile for the
rolling-releasers to build a case in a wiki somewhere?

gene

[Rahul Sundaram]

Post by Genes MailLists
Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the RH
business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
setting, this is quite likely not to go too far .. and so far I'm not
aware of much support for this ..

Board for instance has no business in this at all. Neither does "Red
Hat business side". If you want FESCo's support, you have to write a
proposal. Noone has done the groundwork. So claiming lack of support
is very much premature.

Rahul

[Emmanuel Seyman]

Post by Genes MailLists
Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the RH
business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
setting, this is quite likely not to go too far .. and so far I'm not
aware of much support for this ..

I have no idea why you'ld want to wait for the Board and key redhatters to do
something and waiting for the RH business side seems even more futile.

Post by Genes MailLists
Given that, do folks still believe it could be worthwhile for the
rolling-releasers to build a case in a wiki somewhere?

Yes. This is a bare minimun for stuff to get done.

Emmanuel

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:23:07 -0500

Post by Genes MailLists

Post by Kevin Fenzi
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
...snip...

...

Post by Kevin Fenzi
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html
Until those interested can organize and present a compelling case, I
fear threads like this one aren't too much use.

Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the
RH business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
setting, this is quite likely not to go too far .. and so far I'm not
aware of much support for this ..

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see any chance of it going
anywhere _without_ some kind of more organized and detailed plan.

Post by Genes MailLists
This can of course be because these key folk, after careful
consideration, do not see it as a viable choice to make for Fedora
and/or ultimately its impact on RHEL.
They are, after all, key players for good reason(s) ... I cannot
imagine they are not familiar with the pros/cons of such an approach.
The benefits/drawbacks of a rolling release are rather well known
these days (notwithstanding those that somehow still believe rawhide
is a rolling release .. :-) )...
Given that, do folks still believe it could be worthwhile for the
rolling-releasers to build a case in a wiki somewhere?

Again, speaking for myself, I don't have time or desire to go and
research rolling releases and come up with a plan. I would be happy to
look at such a plan and provide feedback.

I can think of several possible good things that could come out of a
more detailed plan:

- Perhaps you can identify some more minor change in our release setup
that could be done to more accommodate people who like rolling
releases.

- Perhaps the group would form up a new forked distro using rolling
releases.

- Perhaps you could convince people that advantages of rolling releases
are better than the disadvantages.

On the other hand, I think that the chance of any change or good coming
from prolonging this thread are slight.

kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120129/5649c71a/attachment.sig>

[Brendan Jones]

Post by Kevin Fenzi
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:23:07 -0500

Post by Genes MailLists

Post by Kevin Fenzi
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
...snip...

...

Post by Kevin Fenzi
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html
Until those interested can organize and present a compelling case, I
fear threads like this one aren't too much use.

Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the
RH business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
setting, this is quite likely not to go too far .. and so far I'm not
aware of much support for this ..

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see any chance of it going
anywhere _without_ some kind of more organized and detailed plan.

Post by Genes MailLists
This can of course be because these key folk, after careful
consideration, do not see it as a viable choice to make for Fedora
and/or ultimately its impact on RHEL.
They are, after all, key players for good reason(s) ... I cannot
imagine they are not familiar with the pros/cons of such an approach.
The benefits/drawbacks of a rolling release are rather well known
these days (notwithstanding those that somehow still believe rawhide
is a rolling release .. :-) )...
Given that, do folks still believe it could be worthwhile for the
rolling-releasers to build a case in a wiki somewhere?

Again, speaking for myself, I don't have time or desire to go and
research rolling releases and come up with a plan. I would be happy to
look at such a plan and provide feedback.
I can think of several possible good things that could come out of a
- Perhaps you can identify some more minor change in our release setup
that could be done to more accommodate people who like rolling
releases.
- Perhaps the group would form up a new forked distro using rolling
releases.
- Perhaps you could convince people that advantages of rolling releases
are better than the disadvantages.
On the other hand, I think that the chance of any change or good coming
from prolonging this thread are slight.
kevin

I agree, its all pissing in the wind until someone takes a stand and
proposes something concrete

[Jos Vos]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of developers"
feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism of the idea.
If you "can't count" how many times it has come up, perhaps you should
investigate it because there is obviously potential in the idea.

Maybe it's good to create a wiki page or so with a FAQ about both the
rolling release and the long term support issue, explaining why these
things do not exist and why people in general think it's a bad idea.

If people still want to argue *after* reading this FAQ, they should
have really good arguments. The arguments in the original mail about
the "success" of mixing up things are by no means impressing, this
is just stating he's lucky enough to not come across all the possible
problems (and I'm sure there are *many* of them).

[Kevin Kofler]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response with
"just go away".

After seeing you boast about how "at Fuduntu we have been working long and
hard to complete the transition from Fedora to being completely self
hosted", "Today I would like to announce that we are officially forked. This
means that we are now a self contained, self hosted distribution." and how
"Fuduntu has become an independent distribution", why would you think the
Fedora community would still consider you part of itself?

Kevin Kofler

[Phone contacts]

I thought you didn't speak for the community. I'm sorry if forking hurt your feelings, but there really were only two options. Go forward and rework everything for 15 or 16, or fork. Fedora 14 was EOS, remember?

Besides, you have no right and no business telling me where I am or am not welcome.
--
Sent from my Sony Xperia Play.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response with
"just go away".

After seeing you boast about how "at Fuduntu we have been working long and
hard to complete the transition from Fedora to being completely self
hosted", "Today I would like to announce that we are officially forked. This
means that we are now a self contained, self hosted distribution." and how
"Fuduntu has become an independent distribution", why would you think the
Fedora community would still consider you part of itself?

Kevin Kofler

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response
with
"just go away".
There is a difference between disagreeing, and being an asshat.
Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of developers"
feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism of the idea.
If you "can't count" how many times it has come up, perhaps you should
investigate it because there is obviously potential in the idea.

I should stay out of the technical dead horse/discussion and stick to offensive behavior that is my specialty but I feel I need to respond one more time.

Value to who? Some random $BRIGHTIDEAGENERATOR who has no idea of the amount of work involved for those that actually do the work? 1 for and 100 against because it is the 100 that will have to do the work to make the 1 happy? The $BRIGHTIDEAGENERATOR always says "Oh I can help do the work." Then after they look at the reality of the situation discover what is actually involved from an engineering standpoint... they turn in to vapor. There was just a 60 message thread on this topic, why start another flamefest thread of doom?

Sorry again, I disagree.

-- Bob

[Andrew Wyatt]

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen

Post by Andrew Wyatt
I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response
with
"just go away".
There is a difference between disagreeing, and being an asshat.
Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of developers"
feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism of the idea.
If you "can't count" how many times it has come up, perhaps you should
investigate it because there is obviously potential in the idea.

I should stay out of the technical dead horse/discussion and stick to offensive behavior that is my specialty but I feel I need to respond one more time.
Value to who? Some random $BRIGHTIDEAGENERATOR who has no idea of the amount of work involved for those that actually do the work? 1 for and 100 against because it is the 100 that will have to do the work to make the 1 happy? The $BRIGHTIDEAGENERATOR always says "Oh I can help do the work." Then after they look at the reality of the situation discover what is actually involved from an engineering standpoint... they turn in to vapor. There was just a 60 message thread on this topic, why start another flamefest thread of doom?
Sorry again, I disagree.
-- Bob

The downstream benefit to my project is substantial enough that I would
be happy to stick around and help.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
weigh in.
First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15,
16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left
at it's core with much success.

Would you be willing to lead such a project considering you are already
doing some of this work? That would be useful. You can look at Kevin
Fenzi's mail, create a wiki page detailing your proposal and invite
people to work with you. It seems we have a bunch of enthusiasm but
this needs to move beyond that if it is supposed to materialize into
anything substantial.

Rahul

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

Post by Genes MailLists
Possibly - but without the support from at least some of the Fedora
core team (fesco, board, key redhatters etc) and possibly some on the
RH
business side recognizing some potential benefit in the enterprise
setting, this is quite likely not to go too far .. and so far I'm not
aware of much support for this ..
This can of course be because these key folk, after careful
consideration, do not see it as a viable choice to make for Fedora
and/or ultimately its impact on RHEL.
They are, after all, key players for good reason(s) ... I cannot
imagine they are not familiar with the pros/cons of such an approach.
The benefits/drawbacks of a rolling release are rather well known
these days (notwithstanding those that somehow still believe rawhide
is
a rolling release .. :-) )...
Given that, do folks still believe it could be worthwhile for the
rolling-releasers to build a case in a wiki somewhere?

Gene, forgive me while I go off on a slight tangent forking the thread.

I do not thing it is worthwhile for them to do so. There may already be a document somewhere on the wiki on this topic. It will never be found because since the day mediawiki was rolled out there has not been a usable search. I would think that taking a look at existing infrastructure tickets such as the one for getting a usable search for the wiki would be time better spent than writing more pages for the black hole that the wiki has become or dreaming about something that has been shot down repeatedly.

-- Bob

[Orion Poplawski]

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen
Gene, forgive me while I go off on a slight tangent forking the thread.
I do not thing it is worthwhile for them to do so. There may already be a document somewhere on the wiki on this topic. It will never be found because since the day mediawiki was rolled out there has not been a usable search. I would think that taking a look at existing infrastructure tickets such as the one for getting a usable search for the wiki would be time better spent than writing more pages for the black hole that the wiki has become or dreaming about something that has been shot down repeatedly.
-- Bob

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=%22rolling+release%22+-epel&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns106=1&ns108=1&ns110=1&ns112=1&ns114=1&ns116=1

pulls up some relevant links:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals

and

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision

along with a couple other irrelevant links. Doesn't seem that hard to find.

[Noah Hall]

Fuduntu Dev here.

I'm not going to bore you all on how great rolling is, and how it's a
great model that works for everyone - I'll assume the good folks of
Fedora have already researched many different models. Instead, what
I'm going to talk about is the feasibility and the logistics.

Fuduntu didn't start out as a rolling release. We had versions for a
while, until we realised we were basically releasing newer snapshots
of our current software with slightly different defaults.

Having discussed it as a team, we decided to move to rolling - less
work for us to handle the repos and create images, less hassle for our
users to reinstall with each release just because we'd changed some
default package or updated something vital to a newer version. Our
users could just update, and we could just create images. Simples.

The transition was painless. I can't say I noticed much fallout, if
any. Perhaps fewt can remember some, but I can't. Our distro is pretty
stable, with new software - something that's a treat in the Linux
world.

However, it costs. Development time, it costs. There's 3 of us
packaging things, along with 3 newly initiated interns. It also costs
our users to some extent - there's no easy way for them to prevent
something upgrading. They have to roll with the flow. This doesn't
work out great for everyone. A project doing the same for Fedora would
need the backing of experienced developers with time or payment.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu Dev here.
I'm not going to bore you all on how great rolling is, and how it's a
great model that works for everyone - I'll assume the good folks of
Fedora have already researched many different models. Instead, what
I'm going to talk about is the feasibility and the logistics.

It seems that Fuduntu can get together with Fedora by putting up a
proposal and leading the effort. I don't see why not since you have a
bunch of people already doing something. Seems like you guys would or
should have the technical know how.

Rahul

[Jef Spaleta]

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu Dev here.

One question for you with your Fuduntu Dev hat on.

Is Fuduntu is still using a Gnome 2 derived desktop experience?

Assuming that is true. And please correct me if it is not. Can you
point me to any documentation or any archived discussion where the
Fuduntu Dev team have decided on how they are going to transition
users of the rolling release to Gnome 3 if that transition every
happens?

-jef

[Przemek Klosowski]

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu Dev here.

...

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu didn't start out as a rolling release. We had versions for a
while, until we realised we were basically releasing newer snapshots
of our current software with slightly different defaults.
Having discussed it as a team, we decided to move to rolling - less
work for us to handle the repos and create images, less hassle for our
users to reinstall with each release just because we'd changed some
default package or updated something vital to a newer version. Our
users could just update, and we could just create images. Simples.
The transition was painless. I can't say I noticed much fallout, if
any. Perhaps fewt can remember some, but I can't. Our distro is pretty
stable, with new software - something that's a treat in the Linux
world.

The argument against rolling upgrades is that it's a wonderful idea
early on, but then you run into a morass as time goes on, because of:

- difficulty of handling wanted vs. unwanted updates, which in turn
creates combinatorially growing number of config permutations (Gnome 3
yes, GCC 4.7 no, KDE 3 no , kernel 3.x yes, etc.)

- cruft resulting from rolling upgrades trying to preserve old
customizations and 'old way of doing things', as opposed to installing
latest shiny stuff from scratch

In other words, you have to wait a while and think long term to truly
evaluate a rolling upgrade. You have just started, and things are going
swimmingly for now, but the clouds are gathering.

I believe that the problem with the current system is lack of long term
support, i.e. what happens on the trailing, rather than the leading,
edge of upgrades. I can afford doing manual upgrades to the systems
under active development. It's the working, stable systems that I don't
want to touch, but obviously I need security and other essential updates.

To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
version into an appropriate release of one of the long-term-supported
systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific Linux. Without this option,
it's hard to deploy Fedora in a long term fire-and forget capacity,
because I know that every one of them will require manual upgrade or
rebuild when it goes EOL---if not for technical reasons, then because a
lot of places, right or wrong, have a policy requiring currently
supported software. It's a pity because otherwise Fedora is an
excellent, reliable system capable of such long-term operation.

[Genes MailLists]

Post by Przemek Klosowski
The argument against rolling upgrades is that it's a wonderful idea
- difficulty of handling wanted vs. unwanted updates, which in turn
creates combinatorially growing number of config permutations (Gnome 3
yes, GCC 4.7 no, KDE 3 no , kernel 3.x yes, etc.)
- cruft resulting from rolling upgrades trying to preserve old
customizations and 'old way of doing things', as opposed to installing
latest shiny stuff from scratch
In other words, you have to wait a while and think long term to truly
evaluate a rolling upgrade. You have just started, and things are going
swimmingly for now, but the clouds are gathering.

To some extent yes - on the other hand, one can always re-install a
rolling release using the latest install snapshot - so in that sense a
rolling release contains a periodic release as a special case anyway ...

gene

[Kevin Kofler]

Post by Przemek Klosowski
To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
version into an appropriate release of one of the long-term-supported
systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific Linux.

This is impossible due to how the Fedora and RHEL releases align, and it is
impossible to change that given RHEL's QA requirements.

When an RHEL release m based on Fedora n gets released, Fedora has long
since moved on: Not only will Fedora n+1 be either already out or around the
corner (and thus likely out by the time CentOS releases), but even Fedora n
updates will now contain packages newer than RHEL m! (Heck, even Fedora n-1
updates will!) RHEL does not include all the post-release version upgrades
of the Fedora version it's based on. Some packages in RHEL m might even be
newer than in Fedora n (backported from Fedora n+1 or even n+2), but others
will be older, and never get upgraded in the lifetime of RHEL m. (RHEL's
update policy is, by design, much more conservative than Fedora's, even the
new one.)

So it is not possible to move from Fedora to RHEL (or equivalent) without
downgrading some packages, and I don't see any way to change this. (It
definitely can't be changed on the Fedora side. It could theoretically be
changed on the RHEL side by backporting all the version upgrades from Fedora
n into RHEL m, but I don't think that would fit the RHEL customers'
requirements, so I don't see Red Hat allowing that, ever.)

Kevin Kofler

[Przemek Klosowski]

Post by Kevin Kofler

Post by Przemek Klosowski
To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
version into an appropriate release of one of the long-term-supported
systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific Linux.

This is impossible due to how the Fedora and RHEL releases align, and it is
impossible to change that given RHEL's QA requirements.

...

Post by Kevin Kofler
So it is not possible to move from Fedora to RHEL (or equivalent) without
downgrading some packages, and I don't see any way to change this. (It
definitely can't be changed on the Fedora side.

The downgrades would actually be better than having an unsupported
system that doesn't get any updates ever. The assumption here is that
the downgrades aren't introducing any security or fundamental
functionality issues--hopefully, 'long term support' means that they
would fix such problems.

In other words, consider an EOL Fedora system that for some reason can't
be upgraded/rebuilt to the latest release. In order to maintain such
system one has to follow every installed package and keep cherry-picking
relevant critical updates, in order to manually build and install custom
packages.

The alternative you describe would mean some temporary pain resulting
from this 'slight downgrade rollover' that is hopefully much less than a
complete reinstall After that, the system would be on automatic updates,
so it wouldn't require constant supervision.

Naturally, one could still cherry-pick a specific later version and
build/install its package, if there were some specific issues with
specific packages---much less of a burden.

I will look around and see if I had a candidate to try this method on. I
think the yum-only upgrade method should work for this!

Thanks for the idea

przemek

[Jos Vos]

Post by Przemek Klosowski
The downgrades would actually be better than having an unsupported
system that doesn't get any updates ever. The assumption here is that
the downgrades aren't introducing any security or fundamental
functionality issues--hopefully, 'long term support' means that they
would fix such problems.

If people can live with RHEL/CentOS/SL' "older" packages *and* need LTS,
why would they *ever* start using Fedora anyway (when they know they
have to move to RHEL/CentOS/SL at some point anyway).

Sorry, this is really a *very* weird scenario.

[Przemek Klosowski]

Post by Jos Vos

Post by Przemek Klosowski
The downgrades would actually be better than having an unsupported
system that doesn't get any updates ever. The assumption here is that
the downgrades aren't introducing any security or fundamental
functionality issues--hopefully, 'long term support' means that they
would fix such problems.

If people can live with RHEL/CentOS/SL' "older" packages *and* need LTS,
why would they *ever* start using Fedora anyway (when they know they
have to move to RHEL/CentOS/SL at some point anyway).
Sorry, this is really a *very* weird scenario.

I don't think it is weird at all. Look at the deployment lifecycle:
Fedora provides the most recent software, so it makes perfect sense to
deploy it on new systems. Why settle for the old stuff?

At the same time, if the deployment is successful, we're no longer
chasing the latest features, and the stability becomes paramount---the
good is the enemy of the best. For a while, Fedora allows us to coast on
such a running system, but then we're caught by the EOL.

What do you do with your Fedora systems deployed long-term? update them
as soon as new version comes up? leave them running? don't use Fedora
for the long term?

[Jos Vos]

Post by Przemek Klosowski
At the same time, if the deployment is successful, we're no longer
chasing the latest features, and the stability becomes paramount---the
good is the enemy of the best. For a while, Fedora allows us to coast on
such a running system, but then we're caught by the EOL.

As explained earlier, at Fxx EOL, the newest RHEL software is older
than the Fxx software, so this not make much sense.

Post by Przemek Klosowski
What do you do with your Fedora systems deployed long-term? update them
as soon as new version comes up? leave them running? don't use Fedora
for the long term?

Yes, Fedora is not for long term if updates/security are an issue.
Period.

[Kevin Kofler]

Post by Przemek Klosowski
The downgrades would actually be better than having an unsupported
system that doesn't get any updates ever. The assumption here is that
the downgrades aren't introducing any security or fundamental
functionality issues--hopefully, 'long term support' means that they
would fix such problems.

Well, then you can try migrating with yum distro-sync and it will do the
required downgrades, but such an option will never be officially supported
by anybody because package downgrades aren't officially supported in the
first place. (Fedora doesn't support it, some upstreams also don't support
it, and e.g. config files from the new version might no longer work with the
old one.)

Kevin Kofler

[Emmanuel Seyman]

Post by Przemek Klosowski
To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
version into an appropriate release of one of the
long-term-supported systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific
Linux.

This would be a massive distraction from our mission.

Get the $FOO people to cover migrations from other distributions to $FOO.
The Fedora people should only be concerned with migrations to Fedora, not
from it.

[Przemek Klosowski]

Post by Emmanuel Seyman

Post by Przemek Klosowski
To solve that, I'd be nice if there was a way to roll over an EOL
version into an appropriate release of one of the
long-term-supported systems such as RHEL, Centos or Scientific
Linux.

This would be a massive distraction from our mission.
Get the $FOO people to cover migrations from other distributions to $FOO.
The Fedora people should only be concerned with migrations to Fedora, not
from it.

Precisely---but lack of the EOL path sometimes prevents use of Fedora in
the first place. Jon Vos said elsewhere in this discussion that "Fedora
is not for long term if updates/security are an issue. Period."

I am just trying to explore if there's a way around that.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 13:20:58 -0500,

Post by Przemek Klosowski
Precisely---but lack of the EOL path sometimes prevents use of
Fedora in the first place. Jon Vos said elsewhere in this discussion
that "Fedora is not for long term if updates/security are an issue.
Period."
I am just trying to explore if there's a way around that.

A lot of people need to step up and do the work. So far no one has been
able to successfully organize a group to do it. And given Fedora is more likely
to attract people who want to run the latest and (hopefully) greatest stuff,
I would expect finding a lot of people who want to support old Fedora releases
is going to be difficult.

[Henrique Junior]

Post by Bruno Wolff III
A lot of people need to step up and do the work. So far no one has been
able to successfully organize a group to do it. And given Fedora is more likely
to attract people who want to run the latest and (hopefully) greatest stuff,
I would expect finding a lot of people who want to support old Fedora releases
is going to be difficult.
--

+1
Too bad I do not have the experience necessary to take the first step,
but when this group is created, I'll be happy to help in anyway I can.

[Emmanuel Seyman]

Post by Przemek Klosowski
I am just trying to explore if there's a way around that.

The answer is the same on this subject and the rolling release:
You need to get a group together, put together a set of specifications
that everybody agrees on and start working on making it happen.

If nobody is willing to do this, nothing is going to happen.

Emmanuel

[Adam Williamson]

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen
I do not thing it is worthwhile for them to do so. There may already
be a document somewhere on the wiki on this topic. It will never be
found because since the day mediawiki was rolled out there has not
been a usable search.

There certainly is, it's just outsourced:

google "search term" site:fedoraproject.org/wiki

works fine. :)

[Michael Schwendt]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm
certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15,
16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left
at it's core with much success.

This would have deserved a longer comment,

| [...] packages from 15, 16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu
| which still has a lot of 14 left [...]

because it's an eyebrow raiser, but instead, energy is put into
participating in flame-wars. :-/

The fact that it's possible to replace some software in a released dist
with newer versions doesn't make it a rolling release yet.

It's not clear to me at all whether the term "rolling release" is used in
the same way by everyone. Technical questions remain unanswered. How much
parallelization of different software releases in packages would be
necessary?

Post by Andrew Wyatt
using a waterfall repository method is solid, we have been doing it for
over year now.

"Waterfall" is not "rolling", so how would you eliminate the stages
without eliminating the testing period and without invalidating the
test results when replacing/upgrading too many crucial components
further down in the waterfall?

[Brendan Jones]

Post by Andrew Wyatt
I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
weigh in.
First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm certain
that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15, 16, and
Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left at it's
core with much success.
Some potential reasons why it would be a good idea.. A lot of us don't
like to risk a major upgrade every 6 months to a year, or reinstall. We
can always save a dump of rpms, and not format /home but still, that's a
lot of unnecessary work. If you aren't in a position to do a full backup
(right or wrong) it becomes even more of a challenge.
It's also very convenient to upgrade to Firefox 9 for example without
having to go to Remi, or spend hours upgrading everything. If it rolls,
everything gets upgraded over time. Huge convenience factor here.
I just pulled LibreOffice 3.4.4 from Fedora 16 down to Fuduntu. I'm also
shipping Firefox 9.
If you were interested in going forward with a rolling release model,
your community is large enough that it doesn't have to be your core
product. It could though be the foundation for your core product.
I'd recommend continuing your release cycle, shifting to rolling Fedora,
and point release from that.
Rawhide IMHO is "rolling", but it's also very unstable, as you all well
know.

I think what a lot of end-users don't understand is that Fedora sits
_very_ close to upstream and in the most part, package updates are
determined by the maintainer, not Fedora. What that means is a lot of
the show-stopping bugs meet their end in rawhide before they even make
it to the other rolling release distros. If the need is for the latest
and greatest of package _x_ then that is a packaging issue and that
should be directed to the maintainer of said package - Fedora does not
decide when/if a package should be upgraded - the packager does. For
major changes, the Fedora KDE model seems to work pretty well I think.

I don't really see the need for a rolling release... if end users want
that warm-happy feeling that they're using the latest and greatest then
thay should contact the maintainer or provide a patch.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
The idea thrown out there that discussed using a waterfall repository
method is solid, we have been doing it for over year now.
Development, Rawhide - done.
Testing - Reasonably stable, packages promoted from development when
they are ready.
Stable - After you have tested the packages with a reasonably wide
audience, promote them to stable.
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18, 19.
This model been working for us for a short while now.
You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some of
the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of it.
Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing some
things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful with a
rolling release.
As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3 via
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins and
remixes are for.
That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is already
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome to
come help out at Fuduntu. :D

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

<SNIP>

Post by Andrew Wyatt

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,

19.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
This model been working for us for a short while now.
You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some

of

Post by Andrew Wyatt
the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of

it.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing

some

Post by Andrew Wyatt
things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful

with a

Post by Andrew Wyatt
rolling release.
As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3

via

Post by Andrew Wyatt
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins

and

Post by Andrew Wyatt
remixes are for.
That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is

already

Post by Andrew Wyatt
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome

to

Post by Andrew Wyatt
come help out at Fuduntu. :D

I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project. If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.

I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revived if there is need for more discussion, allowing this one to die. I wish the FUDuntu team good luck in their adventure.

-- Bob

[Brendan Jones]

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen
<SNIP>

Post by Andrew Wyatt

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,

19.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
This model been working for us for a short while now.
You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some

of

Post by Andrew Wyatt
the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of

it.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing

some

Post by Andrew Wyatt
things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful

with a

Post by Andrew Wyatt
rolling release.
As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3

via

Post by Andrew Wyatt
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins

and

Post by Andrew Wyatt
remixes are for.
That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is

already

Post by Andrew Wyatt
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome

to

Post by Andrew Wyatt
come help out at Fuduntu. :D

I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project. If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revived if there is need for more discussion, allowing this one to die. I wish the FUDuntu team good luck in their adventure.
-- Bob

Fair point.

[Noah Hall]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen
<SNIP>

Post by Andrew Wyatt

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,

19.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
This model been working for us for a short while now.
You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some

of

Post by Andrew Wyatt
the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of

it.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing

some

Post by Andrew Wyatt
things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful

with a

Post by Andrew Wyatt
rolling release.
As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3

via

Post by Andrew Wyatt
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins

and

Post by Andrew Wyatt
remixes are for.
That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is

already

Post by Andrew Wyatt
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome

to

Post by Andrew Wyatt
come help out at Fuduntu. :D

I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project. If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revived if there is need for more discussion, allowing this one to die. I wish the FUDuntu team good luck in their adventure.

Incorrect. We're experienced in this topic - we were merely offering
our view, and not "OMG FUDUNTU'S THE BEST!". Would you criticise a
fishmonger for talking about fish? It would seem so.

Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
time. Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?

We came in offering help. We found only hostility. If you people who
want rolling can get together a Wiki page, then we'll help guide you
using our experience.

It's Fuduntu, not FUDuntu.

I expected better from the Fedora community. I am disappointed.

[Florian Müllner]

Post by Noah Hall
I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
time. Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?

Whatever their reasons might be, Ubuntu being a rolling release distro
is not one of them. Simply because Ubuntu does not do rolling
releases ;-)

Regards,
Florian

[Reindl Harald]

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
time.

why are you doing it instead a yum-upgrade?
i made some hundret the last yaers so there is no need for reinstall

Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?

*lol* who told you this?

maybe more people using ubuntu in suammy but surely not for development
why more people are using ubuntu is clear - many people believe they
can use it like windows with no thoughts at all


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120130/b7f403df/attachment.sig>

[Noah Hall]

Post by Reindl Harald

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
time.

why are you doing it instead a yum-upgrade?
i made some hundret the last yaers so there is no need for reinstall
Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?
*lol* who told you this?
maybe more people using ubuntu in suammy but surely not for development
why more people are using ubuntu is clear - many people believe they
can use it like windows with no thoughts at all

Personal experience in both industry and education. You can "lol" all
you want, it doesn't change it's the most used distro. I dislike it
strongly myself, and I'd prefer Fedora to be used as it doesn't have a
very silly lead developer.

Post by Reindl Harald
Whatever their reasons might be, Ubuntu being a rolling release distro
is not one of them. Simply because Ubuntu does not do rolling
releases ;-)

Indeed, but there's a lot less fuss upgrading Ubuntu from one version
to another. A lot less.

[Henrique Junior]

I've started talking to Greg KH, the guy who implemented openSUSE

1 - What were the changes in the infrastructure necessary for the operation of
openSUSE Tumbleweed?

None.

2 - The Tumbleweed has led to a great "cost" in manpower to be maintained?

Nope, it's trivial to maintain (5-10 minutes ever few days at most),
thanks to our wonderful infrastructure (the open build system).

3 - The return of a rolling release repository has been the expected?

What do you mean by "return"?

Lots and lots of people use it and rely in it every day, and are very
happy with it, so it is succeeding as far as I can tell. Is that what
you mean?

Note, if you infrastructure can't handle such a thing as a rolling
release like obs can support, then it will be difficult for you to do
this in Fedora.

best of luck,
-----------------
So, is anyone here familiar to openSUSE Build System? Can Koji do the same?

Post by Reindl Harald

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
time.

why are you doing it instead a yum-upgrade?
i made some hundret the last yaers so there is no need for reinstall
Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?
*lol* who told you this?
maybe more people using ubuntu in suammy but surely not for development
why more people are using ubuntu is clear - many people believe they
can use it like windows with no thoughts at all

Personal experience in both industry and education. You can "lol" all
you want, it doesn't change it's the most used distro. I dislike it
strongly myself, and I'd prefer Fedora to be used as it doesn't have a
very silly lead developer.

Post by Reindl Harald
Whatever their reasons might be, Ubuntu being a rolling release distro
is not one of them. Simply because Ubuntu does not do rolling
releases ;-)

Indeed, but there's a lot less fuss upgrading Ubuntu from one version
to another. A lot less.
--
devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Brendan Jones]

Post by Henrique Junior
I've started talking to Greg KH, the guy who implemented openSUSE

1 - What were the changes in the infrastructure necessary for the operation of
openSUSE Tumbleweed?

None.

2 - The Tumbleweed has led to a great "cost" in manpower to be maintained?

Nope, it's trivial to maintain (5-10 minutes ever few days at most),
thanks to our wonderful infrastructure (the open build system).

3 - The return of a rolling release repository has been the expected?

What do you mean by "return"?
Lots and lots of people use it and rely in it every day, and are very
happy with it, so it is succeeding as far as I can tell. Is that what
you mean?
Note, if you infrastructure can't handle such a thing as a rolling
release like obs can support, then it will be difficult for you to do
this in Fedora.
best of luck,
-----------------
So, is anyone here familiar to openSUSE Build System? Can Koji do the same?

Post by Reindl Harald

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
time.

why are you doing it instead a yum-upgrade?
i made some hundret the last yaers so there is no need for reinstall
Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?
*lol* who told you this?
maybe more people using ubuntu in suammy but surely not for development
why more people are using ubuntu is clear - many people believe they
can use it like windows with no thoughts at all

Personal experience in both industry and education. You can "lol" all
you want, it doesn't change it's the most used distro. I dislike it
strongly myself, and I'd prefer Fedora to be used as it doesn't have a
very silly lead developer.

Post by Reindl Harald
Whatever their reasons might be, Ubuntu being a rolling release distro
is not one of them. Simply because Ubuntu does not do rolling
releases ;-)

Indeed, but there's a lot less fuss upgrading Ubuntu from one version
to another. A lot less.
--
devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

The weakest link in any build system is the package maintainers

[Matthias Runge]

Post by Henrique Junior
I've started talking to Greg KH, the guy who implemented openSUSE

Oh great. Thank you for doing something constructive here.


I'm concerned about bundled libs and requirements of libraries. If I
remember right, up to a certain point, gnome was dependant on a special
javascript-library of firefox. So updateing firefox to a higher version
would have broken gnome (to a certain point).

One could avoid this, if one would include required libraries for own
packages. (canceling the no-bundled-libs-rule).
This rule afaik does not exist in SuSE. Their guidelines have this: [1]
(same for fedora [2])

Packages in openSUSE should make every effort to avoid having multiple,
separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package.

In other words: as maintainer you should try to avoid bundling libraries
and other dependencies, but it's not strictly forbidden, like in fedora. [3]

In some other ways, I had the feeling, other distros didn't try to be as
clean as fedora tries to be (I must admint, I have a very limited and
onesided view). Being less strict here creates more freedom for package
maintainers.


Maybe introducing a "testing"-release as concession to both sides is
acceptable?

- newest versions, including risk of being broken -> rawhide
- (merely) stable versions will be propagated from rawhide to "testing"
- branching stable versions each six months (or so) from testing-branch

If someone wants a rolling release, he might use "testing" without the
bleeding edge of rawhide. A testing version just wouldn't break
everything we had in the past and also support a more usable testing
platform.

Matthias



[1]
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects

[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects

[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

[Kevin Kofler]

Post by Matthias Runge
Maybe introducing a "testing"-release as concession to both sides is
acceptable?
- newest versions, including risk of being broken -> rawhide
- (merely) stable versions will be propagated from rawhide to "testing"
- branching stable versions each six months (or so) from testing-branch

No.

* It's extra work to maintain the extra branch: Who would decide when a
package is stable enough for testing? Most likely, the maintainer, who would
then have to deal with Bodhi for testing as well, in addition to doing it
for the releases. Having to work with Bodhi for Rawhide builds is a non-
starter, it's already enough of a PITA to do it for the branched release. We
cannot get any development done that way.

* As I already pointed out elsewhere in the thread, branching stable from
testing rather then Rawhide would mean older software in stable. We are not
Debian, we want to ship current software!

So no, I don't see the Debian model working for us, at all, and I don't
consider that an acceptable compromise at all.

Kevin Kofler

[Matthias Runge]

Post by Kevin Kofler

Post by Matthias Runge
Maybe introducing a "testing"-release as concession to both sides is
acceptable?
- newest versions, including risk of being broken -> rawhide
- (merely) stable versions will be propagated from rawhide to "testing"
- branching stable versions each six months (or so) from testing-branch

No.
* It's extra work to maintain the extra branch: Who would decide when a
package is stable enough for testing? Most likely, the maintainer, who would
then have to deal with Bodhi for testing as well, in addition to doing it
for the releases. Having to work with Bodhi for Rawhide builds is a non-
starter, it's already enough of a PITA to do it for the branched release. We
cannot get any development done that way.
* As I already pointed out elsewhere in the thread, branching stable from
testing rather then Rawhide would mean older software in stable. We are not
Debian, we want to ship current software!
So no, I don't see the Debian model working for us, at all, and I don't
consider that an acceptable compromise at all.
Kevin Kofler

You're right, putting a testing line between rawhide and stable makes
software in stable a little older. Nobody said, packages in testing
should stay there as long as in debian-testing.

Let users decide, if something goes from rawhide to testing; take a
limit of 3 days to stay in rawhide, before it's allowed for testing.
Three days should prevent major breakages.

I know, this is kind of strict and burdens more work to maintainers.
Building in this model into bodhi could automate almost everything of it.



If we take your model (if I remember right): everybody is allowed to
submit everything in every branch may lead to some instable systems.

This model can't prevent breakage in any branch. I'd say: it provokes
breakage. I'm pretty convinced, nobody wants to break something.
Ignorance, even through no ones fault will do easily harm here.

[Kevin Kofler]

Post by Matthias Runge
You're right, putting a testing line between rawhide and stable makes
software in stable a little older. Nobody said, packages in testing
should stay there as long as in debian-testing.

Any time wasted by going through the extra testing branch is too much time.

And the extra transition wouldn't be the testing→stable one, but the
Rawhide→testing one (because testing would be what stable would be branched
from under your proposal). So the time wasted is the one it takes to go from
Rawhide to testing.

Post by Matthias Runge
Let users decide, if something goes from rawhide to testing; take a
limit of 3 days to stay in rawhide, before it's allowed for testing.
Three days should prevent major breakages.
I know, this is kind of strict and burdens more work to maintainers.
Building in this model into bodhi could automate almost everything of it.

Bodhi is a major PITA to work with. It just doesn't scale for the kind of
development we do in Rawhide. The goal of Rawhide is to do DEVELOPMENT for
the next release, NOT to ship a working rolling release.


If you want a rolling branch:
* The branch should be treated like an additional release, branched from
Rawhide independently from the releases. Releases should keep being branched
directly from Rawhide.
* Most importantly, the onus of maintaining the extra branch should sit
ENTIRELY WITH THE PEOPLE WHO WANT IT! It is totally unacceptable to force
all of us maintainers to support the additional branch we consider entirely
pointless and unsupportable. (And I have explained many times why I consider
a rolling release unsupportable, and several other maintainers agreed with
me, read the mailing list archives.)
* IMHO, it should be required to use a name distinct from "Fedora", to make
it clear that it is maintained by different people.
Maybe you want to work with the Fuduntu folks, who are basically doing all
of the above. Forcing it on Fedora proper is not going to work.

Post by Matthias Runge
If we take your model (if I remember right): everybody is allowed to
submit everything in every branch may lead to some instable systems.

That oversimplifying means you're attacking a strawman.

I don't want to allow any and all updates in a stable branch! Updates to
incompatible new versions, where "incompatible" can mean any of:
* breaks dependencies (e.g. because it breaks a library ABI without
including rebuilds of all dependent packages in the same grouped update),
* introduces known regressions (i.e. new bugs, but only if we know about
them, not if somebody just speculates about how some new feature MIGHT
introduce regressions without any actual issue being known),
* removes features,
* cannot use or import existing user data (documents, savegames,
configuration files etc.),
* has a radically different user interface (e.g. GNOME 2 → 3, I'm not
talking about a menu entry getting moved from one place to another here) and
no option(s) to get the old interface (or something reasonably close to it)
back,
* probably some other conditions I forgot (use common sense!)
should NOT be pushed. Yes, I think ultimately the call needs to be the
maintainer's (having FESCo vote over every individual case doesn't scale if
we want to encourage rather than discourage version upgrades), but that
doesn't mean the maintainer should push "everything".

What I think that OTOH we *should* allow (whereas the current policy
discourages it) in stable updates includes:
* new features (which should even be ENCOURAGED),
* library ABI breaks (as long as all dependent packages in Fedora are
rebuilt and pushed in the same grouped update; and if packages in a popular
3rd-party repository are affected, common courtesy dictates that you should
also give them a heads-up and try to coordinate things with them, even
though that is officially out of the scope of Fedora),
* minor/harmless user interface changes (a.k.a. upstream usability tweaks).

Post by Matthias Runge
This model can't prevent breakage in any branch. I'd say: it provokes
breakage. I'm pretty convinced, nobody wants to break something.

Actually, I strongly believe the model will not introduce breakage where
followed properly. (In fact, it had been unwritten policy for large parts of
Fedora before the new update policies and worked really well.)

What my proposed model WOULD achieve is that you would get almost all the
new software you'd get in a rolling release, but NOT where it breaks things.
As a result:
* The users of stable releases would get no more breakage than now.
* You would end up with LESS breakage than by using a rolling release.

Post by Matthias Runge
Ignorance, even through no ones fault will do easily harm here.

Ignorance must be fought through education, not bureaucracy!

Kevin Kofler

[Matthias Runge]

Post by Kevin Kofler
Ignorance must be fought through education, not bureaucracy!
Kevin Kofler

Right. Bureaucracy must be minimized, but I also think, processes must
get designed in a way preventing people from making bad errors. If a
little bureaucracy facilitates it, so in somebody's name do it.

I'm not proposing a rolling release.

My intention was, to show a way, how to get both (current stable release
model AND rolling release) from our infrastructure and release model.

You're not alone, when thinking, rolling releases would be mostly
unsupportable.

I also know, discussions about releases and packager policies
come and go (about once or even twice every release cycle), so let's
stop here.

[Brendan Jones]

Post by Noah Hall
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen
<SNIP>

Post by Andrew Wyatt

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18,

19.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
This model been working for us for a short while now.
You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some

of

Post by Andrew Wyatt
the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of

it.

Post by Andrew Wyatt
Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing

some

Post by Andrew Wyatt
things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful

with a

Post by Andrew Wyatt
rolling release.
As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3

via

Post by Andrew Wyatt
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins

and

Post by Andrew Wyatt
remixes are for.
That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is

already

Post by Andrew Wyatt
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome

to

Post by Andrew Wyatt
come help out at Fuduntu. :D

I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project. If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revived if there is need for more discussion, allowing this one to die. I wish the FUDuntu team good luck in their adventure.

Incorrect. We're experienced in this topic - we were merely offering
our view, and not "OMG FUDUNTU'S THE BEST!". Would you criticise a
fishmonger for talking about fish? It would seem so.
Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a Rawhide
user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of my
time. Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?
We came in offering help. We found only hostility. If you people who
want rolling can get together a Wiki page, then we'll help guide you
using our experience.
It's Fuduntu, not FUDuntu.
I expected better from the Fedora community. I am disappointed.

Man, if you call that hostile then you are extremely paranoid. No egg
shells here.

So if you want to pick and choose what is wrong with rawhide? You guys
are doing it anyway, right?

[Andrew Wyatt]

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen
I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project. If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revived if there is need for more discussion, allowing this one to die. I wish the FUDuntu team good luck in their adventure.
-- Bob

It was about helping you which also helps us downstream. If you weren't so dense you'd understand that is how the community is supposed to work. It had nothing to do with advertising our project, because we don't need to advertise on your development list.

The idea that I came here to advertise my project is about as asinine as your other replies to me thus far.

I'm extremely disappointed in the immaturity of some of the members of this list. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you don't want our help, you could have just said so, you didn't need to advertise your status as a douche bag.

I wanted to help upstream, but I can see it isn't wanted and I have better things to do with my time than argue with a couple of 12 year olds.

Mr. Garrett, I appreciated your reminder, but I have to ask why it wasn't directed at anyone else.

/list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120129/f16a228d/attachment.html>

[Brendan Jones]

Post by Andrew Wyatt

Post by Robert 'Bob' Jensen
I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project. If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revived if there is need for more discussion, allowing this one to die. I wish the FUDuntu team good luck in their adventure.
-- Bob

It was about helping you which also helps us downstream. If you weren't so dense you'd understand that is how the community is supposed to work. It had nothing to do with advertising our project, because we don't need to advertise on your development list.
The idea that I came here to advertise my project is about as asinine as your other replies to me thus far.
I'm extremely disappointed in the immaturity of some of the members of this list. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
If you don't want our help, you could have just said so, you didn't need to advertise your status as a douche bag.
I wanted to help upstream, but I can see it isn't wanted and I have better things to do with my time than argue with a couple of 12 year olds.
Mr. Garrett, I appreciated your reminder, but I have to ask why it wasn't directed at anyone else.
/list.

Apart from Kevin's inappropriate comment I can't see why you are so
offended. He doesn't speak for Fedora, he speaks for himself. As we all do

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Brendan Jones" <brendan.jones.it at gmail.com>
To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:44:21 AM
Subject: Re: Rolling release Fedora - fantastic idea

Post by Henrique Junior
I've started talking to Greg KH, the guy who implemented openSUSE

1 - What were the changes in the infrastructure necessary for the
operation of
openSUSE Tumbleweed?

None.

2 - The Tumbleweed has led to a great "cost" in manpower to be
maintained?

Nope, it's trivial to maintain (5-10 minutes ever few days at
most),
thanks to our wonderful infrastructure (the open build system).

3 - The return of a rolling release repository has been the
expected?

What do you mean by "return"?
Lots and lots of people use it and rely in it every day, and are
very
happy with it, so it is succeeding as far as I can tell. Is that
what
you mean?
Note, if you infrastructure can't handle such a thing as a rolling
release like obs can support, then it will be difficult for you to
do
this in Fedora.
best of luck,
-----------------
So, is anyone here familiar to openSUSE Build System? Can Koji do
the same?

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Reindl

Post by Reindl Harald

Post by Noah Hall
Fuduntu is not the best. Neither is Fedora. I, myself, am a
Rawhide
user. I'd love for Fedora become rolling simply because messing
around
with preupgrade and reinstalling is oh so tedious and a waste of
my
time.

why are you doing it instead a yum-upgrade?
i made some hundret the last yaers so there is no need for
reinstall
Why do you think more people are using Ubuntu for development?
*lol* who told you this?
maybe more people using ubuntu in suammy but surely not for
development
why more people are using ubuntu is clear - many people believe
they
can use it like windows with no thoughts at all

Personal experience in both industry and education. You can "lol"
all
you want, it doesn't change it's the most used distro. I dislike
it
strongly myself, and I'd prefer Fedora to be used as it doesn't
have a
very silly lead developer.

Post by Reindl Harald
Whatever their reasons might be, Ubuntu being a rolling release
distro
is not one of them. Simply because Ubuntu does not do rolling
releases ;-)

Indeed, but there's a lot less fuss upgrading Ubuntu from one
version
to another. A lot less.
--
devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

The weakest link in any build system is the package maintainers

Fedora's huge advantage and huge disatvantage is the same - For a great number of packages the package maintainer is upstream developer too.
This is great in my eyes, making all other distros not even coming close for development purposes. But I agree that upstream developers
might be the weakest point because whenever we have to choose we will choose to fix the upstream project FIRST. And sometimes there will be no time left for Fedora because of real life.
And this is the weakest point - I myself would always prefer to fix a problem upstream and not playing some dance to ship latest version on some rolling distro or older-but-supported version.
Yes, for me F-(n-1) receives only security fixes though if someone wants he/she can step in and do the rolling/old versions support.
So yes someone can count package maintainers as the weakest point - from a very limited Fedora POV, if one looks on the big (Linux-wide) picture the observations would be very different.

Alex

--
devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Brendan Jones]

Post by Aleksandar Kurtakov
Fedora's huge advantage and huge disatvantage is the same - For a great number of packages the package maintainer is upstream developer too.
This is great in my eyes, making all other distros not even coming close for development purposes. But I agree that upstream developers
might be the weakest point because whenever we have to choose we will choose to fix the upstream project FIRST. And sometimes there will be no time left for Fedora because of real life.
And this is the weakest point - I myself would always prefer to fix a problem upstream and not playing some dance to ship latest version on some rolling distro or older-but-supported version.
Yes, for me F-(n-1) receives only security fixes though if someone wants he/she can step in and do the rolling/old versions support.

That's not true. The packager decides when/if an update should be passed
on to n-1. Personally, in the packages I maintain stability is a primary
concern and updates to n-1 are very carefully considered. Having said
that if enough people make some noise of course I will update. I
*really* recommend that people should file bugs against the packages
that they think need updating. A rolling release is just creating more
work - I think there is better time spent focusing on the packages that
we/you need

Post by Aleksandar Kurtakov
So yes someone can count package maintainers as the weakest point - from a very limited Fedora POV, if one looks on the big (Linux-wide) picture the observations would be very different.
Alex

Post by Phone contacts
--
devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Henrique Junior]

I'm using Tumbleweed for some releases now and I'm amazed to see how
smooth and painless openSUSE make it look to use and maintain. To
them, it is basically just a repo, but, as Greg said, this "ease of
maintain" is due to the openSUSE Build Service and I'm not sure this
will be so easy in Fedora.

Post by Aleksandar Kurtakov
Fedora's huge advantage and huge disatvantage is the same - For a great
number of packages the package maintainer is upstream developer too.
This is great in my eyes, making all other distros not even coming close
for development purposes. But I agree that upstream developers
might be the weakest point because whenever we have to choose we will
choose to fix the upstream project FIRST. And sometimes there will be no
time left for Fedora because of real life.
And this is the weakest point - I myself would always prefer to fix a
problem upstream and not playing some dance to ship latest version on some
rolling distro or older-but-supported version.
Yes, for me F-(n-1) receives only security fixes though if someone wants
he/she can step in and do the rolling/old versions support.

That's not true. The packager decides when/if an update should be passed on
to n-1. Personally, in the packages I maintain stability is a primary
concern and updates to n-1 are very carefully considered. Having said that
if enough people make some noise of course I will update. I *really*
recommend that people should file bugs against the packages that they think
need updating. A rolling release is just creating more work - I think there
is better time spent focusing on the packages that we/you need

Post by Aleksandar Kurtakov
So yes someone can count package maintainers as the weakest point - from a
very limited Fedora POV, if one looks on the big (Linux-wide) picture the
observations would be very different.
Alex

Post by Phone contacts
--
devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

--
devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Adam Williamson]

Post by Henrique Junior
I'm using Tumbleweed for some releases now and I'm amazed to see how
smooth and painless openSUSE make it look to use and maintain. To
them, it is basically just a repo, but, as Greg said, this "ease of
maintain" is due to the openSUSE Build Service and I'm not sure this
will be so easy in Fedora.

I don't think OBS does anything Koji doesn't, so far as this is
concerned. OBS' major 'feature' over Koji is that it can be used for
non-SUSE distros, but that's not relevant to the idea of doing a rolling
release of Fedora. It'd still be Fedora.

As others have pointed out, saying 'we have an awesome buildsystem so
making a rolling release is a breeze!' seems to be somewhat missing the
point. Producing a rolling release is about more than just firing off
builds into a repository, if you want to do it right.