On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Martin Sourada wrote: > > I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora > > * I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all > the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to ship updates > fixing more annoyances, including updates to later 4.0.x releases. Yes, I > used F9 with 4.0.x myself, one one machine. Well, I believe most people would disagree with you here. Many of KDE user switched temporarily to other DEs because of this, or stayed with F8... > * KDE 4.0 wasn't an update at all! It was what was shipped with a NEW > release. We intentionally DID NOT update F8 to KDE 4.x. Not 4.0, not 4.1, > not ever. This kind of changes is exactly what we have releases for and why > rolling release models are not usable for production. KDE 4.0 wasn't feature complete, I would call it at the very best Beta of KDE4. And yet you pushed it to *stable* release. Yes, during the development time, not as an update, but still have done it. > * Version updates, the very ones you complain about, brought that 4.0 up to > 4.1 and later 4.2. I used F9 on my main machine from F8's EOL up to F9's > EOL. F9 with KDE 4.2 (and IMHO even 4.1) was rock solid, actually one of the > stablest Fedoras I used. (For example, F10 had issues with my hardware's > ALSA driver affecting PulseAudio, F11 with the graphics driver.) > Well, the problem was that you pushed KDE 4.0 in the first place. Given the state of things, you had very *strong* reasons to update to KDE 4.1 and 4.2. And yes, pulseaudio was IMHO pushed one release earlier than would be ideal as well... > > I like that Fedora is bleeding edge in rawhide, recieves good deal of > > testing *before* release and is more or less conservative when it comes > > to important stuff after release. That way we can provide our users with > > *stable* but sufficiently modern stuff (in many areas even a few months > > ahead of other distros). And I think the new policy aligns pretty well > > with this. > > KDE 4.0 was a result of "Fedora [being] bleeding edge in rawhide", this was > NOT pushed "after release". And it DID receive a "good deal of testing > *before* release". We were very hard at work fixing showstoppers resp. > getting them fixed upstream, it would have been much worse otherwise! If you > had compared the pre-4.0 prerelease which was initially imported into > Rawhide with the 4.0.3 + patches we shipped in F9, you'd have noticed that > there were worlds of differences in reliability and glitch-freeness! A lot > of the bugs that were fixed were reported by Rawhide or kde-redhat unstable > users, some of them were fixed by Fedora developers. > Well, KDE 4.0 was an example of what should have been reverted during the stabilization pre-release phase (similar to what's now happening with gnome 3.0, although with gnome it's the upstream that is sane enough to not release it yet). It was not ready for prime time, IMHO. And as outlined above, I believe that 4.1 and 4.2 were necessary updates, precisely the type where there are strong reasons to push them despite the big number of changes (but require *a lot* of testing). > The NON-conservative updates are what brought 4.1 and 4.2 to the F9 release, > resolving many of the complaints users had about 4.0. > No, given the situation, these were semi-conservative. They fixed zillions of regressions and bugs... Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
