Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

[Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3953 bytes --]

Markos,

A few thoughts inlined.

On 2011.02.08 12:03, Markos Chandras wrote:
 
My main point was that as you move from an old dated set of packages to 
newer packages which by definition are less well tested, stability 
decreases. Users pick somewhere between the two extremes that they are 
happy with. Gentoo stable lies somewhere between Debian stable and LFS 
built live from all the repositories.

> I see what you are saying. However, the 6 months testing is far from
> what I have in mind. 
Thats what releng used to take.

> My only intention is to bring a more stable
> experience to our users. Or, stop claiming that our stable tree rocks
> and Gentoo is perfect for servers because it is not. Ye ye ye I know
> that many many of you have Gentoo on servers but do not forget that
> you
> are developers and you know your way around during breakages. Yes,
> stable tree breaks FAR TOO often. I blame myself for my arch testing
> of
> course however I can't do much about that. 
[snip]

For servers I can point you at the stillborn Gentoo-LAMP project. I 
don't remember much more than its name. Google seems to have forgotten 
it too.

A big part of the problem comes from being a meta-distro. Everyones 
Gentoo is different and we we cannot test all combinations to ensure 
everyone is ok.

More testing will not eliminate the issue but would catch some 
problems. There would be less breakage but not zero.  There is a trade 
off to be made there by both the developers doing the testing and 
the users experiencing the breakage.

I agree that given more resources, the tree could be improved but 
before we move in that direction, I would like to ask is that the best 
use of resources?

As I said above, users are aware of the trade offs involved in choosing 
Gentoo. Are our users really unhappy, or are they just looking for help 
to fix issues when they occur?
Most users do not expect a zero issue upgrade path.

[snip]
> 
> Our stable tree is definitely not suitable for server usage unless 
> you have plenty of free time to
> deal with stupid upgrades because nobody, for example, cared to write
> a
> proper elog or news item. 
[snip]
> 
> Either you like it or not, arch teams are understaffed. All of them.
All of Gentoo is understaffed.

> Therefore we cannot afford a updated stable tree with high QA around
> it. We need to find a more efficient way to test packages on testing
> tree so we can mark them stable with minimal time and cpu cost. We
> need
> dedicated build boxes, like Diego's tinderbox, to test the testing
> tree
> over and over against critical/common/trivial QA problems. If we
> manage
> that, moving packages from testing->stable will be much more time
> efficient and we can guarantee a high quality stable tree.
If this means a more up to date stable tree, that has to be good as the 
stable tree will move closer to testing and there will be fewer 
packages to maintain.  (Counting different versions as packages)
> 
> ps1: Personally I have stopped suggesting gentoo stable for server
> usage
> and I always suggest testing to new users.

I don't quite agree about not recommending Gentoo for servers. Gentoo 
is fine on servers but you need to run a testing environment for your 
updates so you know when you do do an update, exactly what in involved 
and what will happen.  Without your own testing, your server will go 
down from time to time. If you cannot do your own testing, either 
tolerate the downtime or don't use Gentoo.

> 
> ps2: Roy, this is not a personal attack. Do not misinterpret my tone
> :)

I see no personal attack in your words. 
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 
I'll buy you a <insert_refreshment_of_your_choice> next time we meet.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]