"Thomas Janssen" <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> Jesse Keating wrote: >>>> The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different >>>> than the fire hose we have now are silently leaving, and those that are >>>> left are going to say they like the deluge of updates. >>> >>> You say that as if it were a negative thing. >> >> To me it is. It's you and people like you that want to shove a ton of >> updates down the throats of our stable release users (including changes >> that alter behavior and sonames etc...) that have ruined the Fedora I >> helped to build. I want my Fedora back, I don't want what you're creating. > >Interesting here is that one can say "Leave the project if you don't >like what we do" (already done in the direction of Kevin Kofler) but >the offer doesn't count for everybody. >Not saying you should leave, for sure not. I think you're valuable for >the project. The same counts by the way as well for Kevin and everyone >else not sharing your opinion. > >>> It's actually very positive, it >>> means we have found our niche and set some very specific expectations in our >>> user base! We should stick to that and not suddenly turn around half-turn. >> >> We've found our niche, but chasing away our previous niche (and having >> less users show up in our tracking mechanism for it) > >What previous niche? We had a distro that was pretty general purpose, worked for servers and desktops and even laptops. We had a predictable schedule. We had new technology thanks to rawhide. We had timely bugfixes that didn't sacrifice stability, as in things didn't change out from under you on a stable release. We had an ecosystem of third parties that would build up stacks of newer things should a user be adventurous. We had a fresh release quite often that could be relied upon for at least a year. We had a culture of not just throwing crap over the wall at our users, which included ourselves. We had accountability when things did go awry and a honest effort to disrupt the users of our stable releases as little as possible. We also we're a very free distro avoiding nonfree stuff, and we worked well with upstreams. We we're easy to configure, easy to update, easy to install whether a single system or 400 systems in a lab. We we're easy to administrate in the same scenarios. This was fairly unique and what drew a lot of people to the project. >> It's getting to >> the point where me, as a long time Fedora developer and sometimes >> leader, is not enjoying using Fedora any more. Every update run can >> break things, and often does. > >Why not give QA the time to settle and find out how the new things work out? Because the likes of Kevin throw fits whenever we try to insert any QA time or seem to try and improve the quality of our updates in any way other than "throw more of them at people." >> Every update takes for ever because there >> are so many updates. Too many to review each one and see what it does, >> and how to maybe test it and provide feedback. Updates runs just get >> pushed off longer and longer so that I have a block of time to A) apply >> the damn things, and B) spend a few hours recovering from any sort of >> fallout in my workflow. > >What DE is in use on your box? I use Gnome with some KDE apps. > >> If I don't enjoy using the product I'm >> creating, that doesn't bode well. > >Well, it's not just you, creating it. BTW, the same feeling counts for >everyone else. > -- Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
