From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PmnNo-0005Iw-3z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:13:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F276CE089E; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.142]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319DDE0AC1 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.142] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PmnMx-0001yU-9K for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:12:35 +0000 Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:12:29 +0000 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20110208120348.GA13292@bookie.wireless.manchester.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.8 Message-Id: <1297170749.3748.0@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="=-UIwwWcyaKeCa7qWmTRER" X-Originating-Smarthost03-IP: [62.3.120.142] X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 7c065f8c3d65cc1ad50cb4603acb706b --=-UIwwWcyaKeCa7qWmTRER Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Markos, A few thoughts inlined. On 2011.02.08 12:03, Markos Chandras wrote: =20 My main point was that as you move from an old dated set of packages to=20 newer packages which by definition are less well tested, stability=20 decreases. Users pick somewhere between the two extremes that they are=20 happy with. Gentoo stable lies somewhere between Debian stable and LFS=20 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.=20 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.=20 [snip] For servers I can point you at the stillborn Gentoo-LAMP project. I=20 don't remember much more than its name. Google seems to have forgotten=20 it too. A big part of the problem comes from being a meta-distro. Everyones=20 Gentoo is different and we we cannot test all combinations to ensure=20 everyone is ok. More testing will not eliminate the issue but would catch some=20 problems. There would be less breakage but not zero. There is a trade=20 off to be made there by both the developers doing the testing and=20 the users experiencing the breakage. I agree that given more resources, the tree could be improved but=20 before we move in that direction, I would like to ask is that the best=20 use of resources? As I said above, users are aware of the trade offs involved in choosing=20 Gentoo. Are our users really unhappy, or are they just looking for help=20 to fix issues when they occur? Most users do not expect a zero issue upgrade path. [snip] >=20 > Our stable tree is definitely not suitable for server usage unless=20 > you have plenty of free time to > deal with stupid upgrades because nobody, for example, cared to write > a > proper elog or news item.=20 [snip] >=20 > 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=20 stable tree will move closer to testing and there will be fewer=20 packages to maintain. (Counting different versions as packages) >=20 > 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=20 is fine on servers but you need to run a testing environment for your=20 updates so you know when you do do an update, exactly what in involved=20 and what will happen. Without your own testing, your server will go=20 down from time to time. If you cannot do your own testing, either=20 tolerate the downtime or don't use Gentoo. >=20 > ps2: Roy, this is not a personal attack. Do not misinterpret my tone > :) I see no personal attack in your words.=20 >=20 > Regards, > --=20 > Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 >=20 I'll buy you a next time we meet. --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees = --=-UIwwWcyaKeCa7qWmTRER Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk1RQT0ACgkQTE4/y7nJvavAbQCg0RFgLGUKqn2EtGKRYAl1Zs4O /FsAoISld34CsNc0+CuCE6GJeY6JpIMf =QQMj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-UIwwWcyaKeCa7qWmTRER--