[opensuse-factory] Fiddling with our development model

Hi all, This is NOT board intervention, this is just me ;) While at present things appear to be reasonably smooth sailing some (including me) think that there is trouble brewing. Thus, before things move into a more troublesome direction it is probably a good thing to think about changes that could avoid wreckage. Behind the "smooth sailing" appearance is a ton of work that is ever increasing and getting ever more complex. The current push model leads to problems we experience every time a new gcc version shows up, a bunch of stuff breaks and only 2 or 3 people fix things. While the use of staging projects "hides" the problems from Factory users, the problems remain the same. The work for the most part, ends up with the release team as they are the integrators. Partially the behavior of non release team members is understandable as for the most part getting your package build broken by others is annoying at best, and it generally happens at an inconvenient time. Partially the problem may also be that people plain and simply do not get the information about their package being broken in factory. With this as a short background I'd like to propose a change in development model for our beloved distribution. Everything needs a catchy title, thus I'll call it "Integration of independently released components with pull option", very catchy I know ;) . The idea is that we define components, this is going to be a chunk of work, and for each component we define it's dependencies. The component model is not set in stone and would get refined over time to reduce potential overlap and improve interoperability. A component is developed by a team and you can think of a component as a "mini factory replica" (factory as we know it today.) The component team works on releases of their component according to some common and some component specific guidelines we'd have to define and publish. Any component consists of one or more packages and may get fed by devel projects or development may take place in component branches. Each component advances based on it's own release cycle and the component team decides which release of it's dependent components to build against. Some tooling will be needed to help sort out the combinatorial problem. How does this work in more concrete terms? Lets say we have a "Core" component that includes the kernel, glibc, the toolchain and a few other things, but no fluff ;) . This component then gets released every time a new kernel is released and every time a new gcc or glibc are released, or based on some other criteria the core team determines and publishes. Every release gets a number. When a new release of the core component happens nothing breaks because by default nothing builds against the new release yet. Component teams higher up the stack decide against which release of a dependent component they want to build. This puts the "adopt a new toolchain" decision into the court of the component teams rather than having it in the realm of the release team, i.e. the integrators, or the realm of the toolchain team. Therefore, a component team decides on it's time scale when to build against a new release of a dependent component. This concept works whether a given component depends on one or many other components. Obviously there needs to be some notification mechanism that lets dependent component owners know when a new release of one of their dependent components is available. There also needs to be some tagging mechanism for releases and other mechanisms of notification and tracking. A simple example: Lets say component A depends on component B. Component A is released as version 1 (A-1) and component B is also released as version 1 (B-1). Now component team B decides to have release number 2 (B-2) and thus component team A gets notified. Component team A can now create a branch of component A and start building against B-2. If the changes to get A-1 to build against B-2 are trivial and A-1 can work with both B-1 and B-2, component team A merges the changes back from the branch and tags A-1 as working with B-1 and B-2. If the changes to A are extensive component team A may decide to have a new release, tag it as release 2 (A-2) and tag it to be working with B-1 and B-2 or only with B-2 if that is the case. These same principles apply for components with multiple dependencies, with the caveat that things get a bit more complex, still less cumbersome of course than the battles the release team has to fight day in and day out in today's model. This change does imply the end of factory as we know it today. Factory may be "empty" for a good chunk of the release cycle. The replacement for "living on the edge" developers is a set of component selections that can keep you in "alpha mode" all the time. When a release approaches,the release team picks a version of the core component that will be the base for the next openSUSE release. This version is used to populate factory and may be the only component that is in factory for a little while. As other component teams integrate and build against the version of their dependencies that end up in factory and make their own component releases the openSUSE release team can fill factory by pulling more and more per-integrated components. With things per-integrated at the released component level the work of the openSUSE release team becomes easier and sustainable. The underlying assumption is that component teams have an interest in having their component be part of the openSUSE release and thus component teams will have an interest in building against new releases of dependent components. This underlying assumption is not much different from today's. What do we gain from all of this? Interesting work of course ;) , but we also switch to a model that is sustainable in the long run. I am not the only one arguing that the work the release team is doing in its present form cannot be sustained with a growing distribution. The work has to be distributed in some way, and more people doing the same thing that is being done today is probably not the answer. We also gain a unique and interesting development model, that with some additional tooling will allow developers to generate a distribution that is tailored to exactly their need. This in turn should stir interest give us some nice publicity and help us find more fingers on the keyboard to help grow the developer community and with it the distribution. With the independent release of components one can easily imagine an interface where a developer picks a component at a given release level, gets choices of versions of dependent components to select and so on. In the end we can relatively easily generate a tailored "release". This also works the other way around, pick a released version of the core and the interface shows you other components that match this core and so on up the stack. Lots of work, yes, but in the long run we have to make some changes. Thus, the sooner we start the easier it will be. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> wrote:
This idea makes sense. It sounds to me like the root problem you are identifying is the current hairball of package inter-dependencies. So, you are proposing the logical step of breaking the giant hairball into smaller, more manageable and independent hairballs, right? Where the rubber meets the road will be when we have to start breaking those inter-dependencies to separate the hairball. A nice side effect would be if a truly "minimal" openSUSE installation were easy. Currently the susestudio "Just Enough" O/S is 800+ MB. -Archie -- Archie L. Cobbs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Le mardi 30 juillet 2013 à 12:38 -0500, Archie Cobbs a écrit :
Be careful, clearing interdependencies for build doesn't always make things easier for "installation" dependencies :-( -- Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@suse.com> SUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/30/2013 07:08 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
I'v not been working for openSUSE for so long yet, so my view may be a bit limited. I don't think such components are a good solution. Whatever problems may arise due to dependencies to other software will arise in this model, too ... but probably much later in the case the dependencies cannot be foreseen. E.g. some package coming with a shell script which uses a deprecated option which will be removed in the other package. If that dependency is not well-defined, then the problem will arrive when the components come together; and that can be pretty late according to how I read your suggestion. In other words: whatever work has to be done in a package to adapt to a change in another package will have to be done anyway. To my knowlegde the best thing you can do is to start working early on it. I don't see how that workflow could reduce the "sleeping time" before starting to fix a problem. Have a nice day, Berny -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Am 30.07.2013 20:01, schrieb Bernhard Voelker:
This is what I think too. You only move problems and while you may (I don't even believe in that part to be honest) ease the work of the release team, you make it 100x harder for users to pick a stable base to work with. Because the dependencies are still there, but to test version 17 of X together with version 22 of GNOME together with version 8 of evolution you need to update to version 11 of Networkmanager and that then only works with the latest CORE, which then unfortunately is no longer available for X - and at that time you switch to gentoo and compile it all yourself (of course I forgot like 29 components). And of course you need a complete new set of tools too - factory reminder mails? "GNOME component only works with 19292762 permutations of the underlying components, please fix the remaining 27171". What will define a FTP snapshot? how can we create installation DVDs for milestones/testing? I see way more problems than what it would it solve. And what exactly would it solve? I'm not so sure, because the original problem description is "only 2 or 3 people fix things" and I don't see where the new model would create more people to fix things. But let's get back to my favorite example in this context, the main reason 12.2 was delayed: - developer R makes a change to move fsck.$FS to /usr - problem that systems with split /usr are no longer installable was detected, but not understood because it was detected much too late because a lot of other things broke in between - mkinitrd was unmaintained and noone fixed it to support fsck on /usr Now take into account that mkinitrd would be in the Core component, but fsck.$FS would not (perhaps for some values of $FS but not for all). So the breakage would be hidden till component FS27 is actually released. And the question is if the developers of component FS27 actually tested (in my experience it's safe to assume developers never test) and if so, if they tested setups with a split /usr So while discussing development model is never a bad idea, I don't believe in discussing changes without first defining the problem well. IMO the problem is a) Factory is too big and unstructured b) Basically everyone can change almost everything c) Branches are only possible in theory - in practice there are too many problems to be usable d) Too few people actually care and fix problems of importance And I already mentioned in a recent status mail of mine that got almost no feedback: I'm experimenting with splitting factory into groups of importance that are orthogonal to devel projects. Based on those I would then have branches/staging projects that can be verified. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
d) Too few people actually care and fix problems of importance
Actually nowadays, after submitting a package to our Factory, devel repository maintainers and package maintainers don't even know there're problems at all, until we want to update the package next time. Because when you submit a package to Factory, it of course should be built against current Factory. So we thought it builds. Then future change makes it broken. But how do we know? eg: I declare, well, no one knows what packages are broken with the lastest gcc 4.8, even after coolo actually pushed 4.8 into Factory. Actually few repo maintainers really read the "50 failures" status of repository every day or week. few package maintainers really read the Factory status of her package every day or week. So actually she is in a black box until next time she opens the package view page. Coolo has made some improvements in the past: he emails us/our mailing lists. But a lot of packagers are just hit-and-run people. They don't even join the ML. They don't even read coolo's email. They just think: anyway I submit the package, it should be your responsibility to maintain it. That's bad. We're the distribution which has the most packages, while we're also the distribution which has the most unmaintained packages. Greetings Marguerite -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Marguerite Su <i@marguerite.su> wrote:
Actually, and granted this isn't helpful for someone that has to maintain a lot of packages, but I did get hermes notifications due to that push. It's delayed a bit, because you only notice after Factory snapshots get updated, but you do notice it. That is, unless you don't receive or pay attention to hermes, which I hear is the case for the most active packagers, because hermes is painful for them. That can perhaps be improved in Hermes. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Quoting Jos Poortvliet <jospoortvliet@gmail.com>:
Careful with this idea: an orphaned package could stop any kind of evolution happening. Think about stuff that breaks with a new compiler where nobody really cares for; we could a) not push the new compiler, as it 'breaks' other stuff b) drop the stuff that breaks Now of course, none of the two variants can be blindly applied at any moment (or we would have lost zypper with the update to gcc 4.7 :) ) means of identifying 'orphaned' packages are much more important here in my opinion... each package has a maintainer assigned, no? Are those maintainers 'still around'? Do they still care for the package? Might be worthy to come up with a list of 'potentially orphaned packages', contact the respective maintainers, if no reply, 'put it up for grab or delete it'. Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:36:31 +0200, "Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar" <dimstar@opensuse.org> said:
Dominique> means of identifying 'orphaned' packages are much more Dominique> important here in my opinion... each package has a maintainer Dominique> assigned, no? Are those maintainers 'still around'? Do they Dominique> still care for the package? Dominique> Might be worthy to come up with a list of 'potentially orphaned Dominique> packages', contact the respective maintainers, if no reply, Dominique> 'put it up for grab or delete it'. I think regardless of which direction the development model goes, this should be given the priority. -- Life is endless possibilities -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 31 July 2013 13:36:31 Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar wrote:
True, there is an issue there. But to some extend, the rings Coolo talked about can help here, I suppose... Packages in Ring 0 or 1 shouldn't be broken and should always be maintained or something like that?!?
Dominique

Hi, On 07/31/2013 07:36 AM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar wrote:
Yes, this is also important and was part of the discussion we had last year about the maintainer model and project maintainers. I did write a script to collect this data, but as I need an http request for every package that's in Factory the data collection is not reliable as the server gets hit with a lot of requests in a short period of time. There's a FATE request (#314959) for OBS to provide the info I am after in a single request. This will make data collection more reliable and thus feasible. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 31.07.2013 14:20, Robert Schweikert wrote:
There's a FATE request (#314959) for OBS to provide the info I am after I can't see such a feature on feature.opensuse.org unfortunately.
Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 08/01/2013 05:12 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hmm that sucks, I guess I need to refrain from using the fat client in the future. #316218 features.opensuse.org
I do not want to open the lid ;) Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 01.08.2013 17:55, Robert Schweikert wrote:
A snippet from my script to generate reminder mails: list=`osc api /search/package/?match='@project="openSUSE:Factory"' | grep "<devel project=" | sed -e 's,.*project=",,; s,".*,,' | sort -u` ( for i in $list ; do echo "query $i" >&2 osc meta prj $i osc api /search/package/?match='@project="$i"' done | grep '<person.*role="maintainer"' ) | sed -e 's,.*userid=",,; s,".*,,' Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [2013-08-01 18:04]:
Out of curiousity I've thrown together a shell script that is a bit less fragile than the above and spits out a tab seperated list with four fields per row in the form: project package package maintainers project maintainers As the above script, it needs <projects>*2+1 queries (currently 146*2+1=293) which is still far more efficient than one query per package. -- Guido Berhoerster

* Guido Berhoerster <gber@opensuse.org> [2013-08-01 19:55]:
The previous script displayed all packages in Factory development projects even if packages are not in Factory. Here is a new version that only includes packages in Factory, for your convenience the resulting table is attached as well. -- Guido Berhoerster

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:55:12AM -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:
The fat client works, but you need to use stakeholder openSUSE.org. Stakeholder "Novell" features are not visible on features.o.o. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [Jul 30. 2013 20:38]:
Maybe you forget one important thing: Interest of package maintainers to have their stuff building/working on openSUSE. The KDE and GNOME maintainers are a good example, usually maintaining two or more versions in parallel. I as a user can choose which one to install. Give the package/component maintainers more responsibility and they will live up to it. [...]
IMO the problem is a) Factory is too big and unstructured
Isn't that exactly what Robert's proposal is addressing ?
b) Basically everyone can change almost everything
That's a problem indeed. The Kernel development model, with the benevolent dictator and his lieutnants seems to work quite well. Can we adopt this to openSUSE ?
c) Branches are only possible in theory - in practice there are too many problems to be usable
Can you name the problems ? Problems exist to be fixed.
d) Too few people actually care and fix problems of importance
As stated above, give people responsibility, make people responsible. Thanks, Klaus -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 31.07.2013 14:10, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
Give the package/component maintainers more responsibility and they will live up to it.
I'm afraid I've never been a religion person, so I only believe what I see or is proven otherwise. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

* Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> [Aug 01. 2013 15:16]:
Almost.
From my POV, there are two main differences
1) technical experience The process/team accepting SRs for factory operates on generic (packaging) rules, rarely taking specifics of the affected component into account. 2) scalability We have how many persons accepting SRs for factory and how many possible components ? Klaus -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, On 07/30/2013 04:37 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Well, lets just say that problem can be addressed with definition of component boundaries that may not be immediately obvious today. As far as a "stable base" is concerned it actually becomes easier as one can stick to released components. It does become a bit more difficult for those that want to live in "alpha" world, i.e. Factory as we know it today.
And of course you need a complete new set of tools too
Yes we need additional tools, but I don't think that has ever stopped a project previously ;)
The reminder mails would certainly take on a different form. If we think in terms of "this is the way it works now we have to stick with it", then nothing will ever change.
What will define a FTP snapshot? how can we create installation DVDs for milestones/testing?
You'd collect the released version of the components that meet the base requirements you defined for the next release, i.e. every component that is released and supports core version X in the dependency tree. If there is a component higher up the stack and something in between is missing than the developers up the stack have an incentive, self interest, to help those developers in the component they depend on to move forward. Today that incentive does not exist, because everything is in one big clump and in the end people know the Stephan will fix it.
Agreed, thus the proposal to break it up and provide a structure via defined dependencies on components.
b) Basically everyone can change almost everything
Not certain that this is a problem. I'd more define the problem as "A change by any given person may break everyone else's packages"
c) Branches are only possible in theory - in practice there are too many problems to be usable
Fair enough, but branches leave problem a.) unaddressed
d) Too few people actually care and fix problems of importance
I happen to believe, and I may be wrong, that this has 2 main causes as iterated in the original mail. People get their stuff broken by unrelated changes and this is rather de-motivating, and people plain and simply do not know. The not knowing part was also discussed during last year's developer model discussion. As I understand it there is some work planned for Hermes thus this part of the problem may go away.
And I already mentioned in a recent status mail of mine that got almost no feedback:
Maybe you need a catchy title ;) Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

* Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> [2013-07-31 14:51]:
You haven't laid out in any way along what lines you want to divide the packages that make up Factory into "components" and how you want to deal with the interdependencies. Or how and by whom "components" should actually be managed, e.g. do you want to create dozens of "components" release teams? So far this proposal is way too vague to actually discuss this.
Making it more difficult and painfull for users to run Factory and having less integration is the exact opposite of what we need. openQA has its use but it is no substitute for having a broad mass of people exercising the development version with their daily workload, we should work on luring more people into running Factory before the laste release candidate. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/31/2013 09:21 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Purposefully, if I would have, we'd be discussing the contents of the components and implementation details, a discussion which at this point would IMHO not be very helpful.
Well the developers that work on any given component should manage their releases as it is not a whole lot of work. However, yes if someone is interested in contributing by being a release manager for a given component, why not?
More testing by more people is always good. Unfortunately to this day we have failed to come up with ideas that have any effect on the number of people that use factory. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

* Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> [2013-07-31 15:47]:
Well, I would find it helpful because I don't see any feasible way to divide the packages into such components because they simply do not align into neatly separable components for reasons others have already pointed out. And it also makes a difference if we talk about components barely above individual package level or something that resembles the sizes of current development projects.
What does a component consist of? Who are component developers? Today we have a variety of maintenance models, some packages are maintained by a group at the project level, some are manages by a single project maintainer with a few exceptions where packages have an in dividual maintainer, there a projects consisting of packages which have only individual maintainers etc., how are components supposed to be maintained? It is completely unclear to me what you are actually proposing here.
I think increasing the quality of Factory, that is by filtering out the worst problems early and preventing loger periods of breakage, and maybe some marketing (testing days) we can make it more attractive. And I don't see a shortage of ideas to achieve that, e.g. by expanding openQA testing, or through the ability to create more staging projects as Coolo suggested. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, On 07/31/2013 10:36 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
OK, I'll bite, but consider that I have not sat down and pealed everything apart. However it is my firm believe that it is possible. The project model Stephan is testing/implementing is also a way of pealing things apart: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2013-07/msg00003.html thus I'd say I am not the only one that believes we can untangle things ;) OK, now a "simple" example for illustration purposes. Lets say KDE and GNOME were each a component, but there exists an interdependency with NetworkManager. Thus NetworkManager would become it's own component and both GNOME and KDE and possibly other desktop environments would depend on the NetworkManager component. Some components will be large, others will be small, there is no hard and fast rule. The dependencies really drive the size of the components.
One or more packages.
Who are component developers?
The component development team is comprised of those developers that maintain packages that are part of a given component.
A component team can be a single person, although this is as undesirable as it is today at the project or package level, see the maintainer model discussion from last year. A component team can comprise all or some of the package maintainers of the packages inside a component. Communication will be important but communication is important today as well.
It is completely unclear to me what you are actually proposing here.
Hopefully a bit better with the additional data. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hey, On 31.07.2013 17:26, Robert Schweikert wrote:
The dependencies really drive the size of the components.
Nice theory :) The thing with theories is, you need to prove them. How about you start to untangle the most basic set of packages we have[1], define their components and dependencies :-) I bet you'll find a couple of people willing to help you... Henne [1] Patterns: * Base System * Enhanced Base System * Software Management * YaST System Admin -- Henne Vogelsang http://www.opensuse.org Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

* Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> [2013-07-31 17:26]:
OK, it looks like our current development project approach except with smaller projects and an aggregatiom of different components at different versions as the build target instead of the current Factory snapshot. While I agree on the initial problem I think this approach is flawed in many ways, it maximizes complexity and fragmentation and increases work for everyone, in particular the overhead it introduces for component maintainers in terms of needed coordination and release management, the complexity of managing an aggregation of multiple components as build targets, handling bug reports against different combinations of components etc. IMO expanding the release team and/or the alternatives suggested in this thread for making Factory more attractive (greater use of staging projects by splitting up Factory, openQA improvements) seem to have far less cost and greater payoff. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Am 31.07.2013 15:46, schrieb Robert Schweikert:
Do we know how many people use Factory? I mean -- lots of it is perception. People think it is not usable. Or people think it is a rolling distribution like Arch. Both is wrong: it is usable, but it is not usable like Arch, since from time to time large-scale breakage happens. So for people asking me if they should use Factory, i often answer "probably not", just to not put the support burden onto me. But if we can make the "large scale breakage happens" happen less often, Factory might be a good thing for advanced users. Let's try to revive the factory-tested snapshots, that can be used to recover from a bad update and maybe with a few howtos about how to recover from a bad factory update we can actually recommend it for daily use of advanced users. Yeah, that's not really related to the subject. But OTOH making Factory even harder to use than it is today (today it is only hard if something breaks) is probably not the way to get more users. -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, On 08/01/2013 02:39 AM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Based on the numbers presented at oSC we have approximately 2000 factory users, if I remember correctly. Alberto, please correct me if I am wrong. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 01.08.2013 10:03, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Alberto is on vacation, but the presentation on youtube says ~2000 factory (they come and go as latest distribution is late enough) and 8000 tumbleweed. What I don't know though - how many of those "2000 users" are openqa's :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thursday 01 August 2013 08:39:01 Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Well, do we WANT users of Factory? I'm all for it if they are developers or testers, but I would strongly oppose making development ANY harder to appease 'just users' of Factory... Users should use our releases. They are welcome to use Factory but let's focus Factory on, you know, development... If, on the other hand, developers like you and most folk here want Factory to be more stable because it helps them one way or another: let's do it. /J

* Jos Poortvliet <jospoortvliet@gmail.com> [2013-08-01 21:35]:
Yes, we do want users as in non-developers, but a certain kind of users who have the time and are willing to report and follow up on bugs and who are able to deal with minor breakage that is unavoidable from time to time, e.g. sysadmins, enthusiasts/testers, or FOSS developers. Otherwise everything stays as it is, adoption only goes up after RC2 and there isn't enough time to deal with all the non-obvious issues that turn up then due to real-world usage. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:58:12 +0200, Guido Berhoerster <gber@opensuse.org> said:
Guido> Yes, we do want users as in non-developers, but a certain kind of Guido> users who have the time and are willing to report and follow up on Guido> bugs and who are able to deal with minor breakage that is Guido> unavoidable from time to time, e.g. sysadmins, enthusiasts/testers, Guido> or FOSS developers. Otherwise everything stays as it is, adoption Guido> only goes up after RC2 and there isn't enough time to deal with all Guido> the non-obvious issues that turn up then due to real-world usage. Maybe extend the time frame for RC2 testing and promote bug hunting, busting, burping whatever one wants to call it, And maybe provide a carrot -- Life is endless possibilities -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thursday 01 August 2013 23:58:12 Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Sure, but I'd call that testers, and we want them for sure. But people who don't plan on contributing code or bugs, while welcome to use it, should not expect us to adjust our work to them, I think. Meanwhile, there is a lot of overlap between what developers want and what non-developers want (a *more stable factory*) so this shouldn't be a big deal.

* Jos Poortvliet <jospoortvliet@gmail.com> [2013-08-02 13:26]:
At least I don't mean people who from time to time boot up a Factory installation and do specific and focused testing (as dedicated testing communities in other distros do) but people who do their daily work on a Factory installation (and report issues as they run into them), if you want to call them testers then fine.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of overlap between what developers want and what non-developers want (a *more stable factory*) so this shouldn't be a big deal.
I think this proposal would for the stated reasons have an adverse effect on the stability of both development combinations of components as well as the final release and it would also affect testing by multiplying the moving parts, i.e. build targets when you get to more complex stuff like DEs. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, On 08/02/2013 07:52 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
The moving targets do not increase we still have the same stuff that changes. What we would gain is a management layer that helps us better formulate and track those changes. And the "fill up factory only once during a release" example I provided can easily be changed to "fill up factory once a week" cadence. Since the whole thing gets put together of pre-integrated components assembly should be relatively easy. factory users would get updates once a week. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Guido Berhoerster wrote:
When people need to complete their daily work using a Linux system, they most likely will not be running openSUSE Factory. I personally belong to the group of people who "from time to time boot up a Factory installation and do specific and focused testing", but I do my daily work on openSUSE 10.3. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (25.6°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free DNS hosting, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 2013-08-02 21:26 (GMT+0200) Per Jessen composed:
I do my daily work on openSUSE 10.3.
Interesting choice. Because of ZMD, I never did more with it than some testing, especially since 11.0 & 10.2 were my favorites. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Felix Miata wrote:
I ended up with 10.3 mostly by accident, but I have not had any reason to upgrade since then. I was only trying to say that users in 8-5 jobs need stability more than anything, therefore openSUSE Factory is unlikely to be their first choice. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (23.9°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free DNS hosting, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Per Jessen schrieb:
When people need to complete their daily work using a Linux system, they most likely will not be running openSUSE Factory.
Oh, but some do. Like myself. Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

El 02/08/13 07:27, Jos Poortvliet escribió:
Meanwhile, there is a lot of overlap between what developers want and what non-developers want (a *more stable factory*) so this shouldn't be a big deal.
Jos, "more stable factory" is, in practice, an oxymoron, in theory however it sounds cool. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:21:29 +0200 Guido Berhoerster <gber@opensuse.org> wrote:
we should work on luring more people into running Factory before the last release candidate.
That is easy when Factory is runnable as everyday system, but then we have to define what means "runnable". My definition is: System that is easy to upgrade and downgrade in a reasonable time, without data loss, including this ability for individual applications. Current one way road forward, or bust, is not compelling for majority of users. This will also mean that When it happens that something is broken, it will not mean a lot of different skills and long downtime to recover. System that will create data needed for bug report on its own or guiding user, like DrKonqui. This means a lot of work and thinking, but it will make possible to use Factory every day without special skills and data loss as long as user can live with occasional downtime. This is the only way to have many people testing Factory, and in a long run will mean that release is just a quality snapshot of Factory. -- Regards, Rajko. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:37:55PM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
d) Too few people actually care and fix problems of importance
Or they maybe care, but don't know how to help. That's the case for me. I know lots of stuff about packaging, but I know that I will fail with more advanced issues. Packaging wise, but also with source code bugs. The main issues to stay away from helping are: - I get those emails for factory work and I never touched one of the packages, because I don't know if someone else already started to work on it. I would expect an email that tells me that the information from the previous mail is deprecated and the issue fixed. => a locking mechanism might be helpful here since fixing can take hours - it is hard to tell what might have caused the breakage with packages that I have never seen before. OBS should help with telling me what has changed and therefore might have caused the breakage. Does anyone want to compare build logs? :) => make transparent what has changed since the last successful build - documentation is not up-to-date, incomplete or missing. For instance rpmlint gives me a lot of errors, but even with hours of googling I wasn't able to fix one of my packages today. As an example this provides less information than the build log error message: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks#files-duplicate I usually search through my spec files, but this doesn't answer all my questions. => Some best practice spec files would be helpful for stuff like qmake, desktop files, etc. I would be willing to help with the documentation effort around it, but it is hard to judge where to start and if maybe anyone else is taking the same effort already. -- Bye, Stephan Barth SUSE MaintenanceSecurity - SUSE LINUX GmbH GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Am 02.08.2013 17:18, schrieb Stephan Barth:
The main issues to stay away from helping are:
Hi Stephan, Thanks for bringing these up. Everything is theory unless you discuss (and even fix) things really bothering.
That's actually a very poor excuse as there exists a locking mechanism: write a mail if it takes longer than a couple of minute. If it's quick, your submit request with the fix will be the mail :) All locking mechanisms discussed so far have one weakness: they only make sense if everyone uses them. We have this osc collab server, who offers exactly that but is only used by a small subset. We had people requesting a mail if someone branches "their" package and I think it was even implemented, but that only helps if you have single maintainers and "externals" fixing it. It doesn't help to coordinate maintainers.
But developing an automatism will be very hard and I'm not sure if it would help in most cases - because in the end it doesn't matter why invalid memcpy fail now and did not before. They were invalid from the beginning and need fixing. If it was glibc or gcc who revealed the bug doesn't *really* matter.
Join #opensuse-factory on freenode, we're a helpful bunch of people and if you volunteer on writing down tips&tricks heard on that channel, even better! Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/30/2013 02:01 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
That's correct, the work does not go away. The question is whether the work gets done by 1 or 2 people or by many more. In the current model developers fell little if any responsibility for factory, I think. This feeling is based on the observed symptom that for larger issues, such as a gcc change, only few are fixing stuff. Thus finding a way to bind more developers into the process should help alleviate the problem. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

El 30/07/13 13:08, Robert Schweikert escribió:
The idea is that we define components, this is going to be a chunk of work, and for each component we define it's dependencies.
Dependencies change all the time, how you will define "dependencies" in a sustainable manner that does not require eternal tweaking ? his component then gets released every time a
new kernel is released and every time a new gcc or glibc are released, or based on some other criteria the core team determines and publishes.
The kernel is a component completely unrelated to GCC or glibc for the matter. and all of those move a quite different paces.
Lots of work, yes, but in the long run we have to make some changes. Thus, the sooner we start the easier it will be.
Sounds like an even more complicated approach that will cause eternal paralysis of analysis and won't get anything done, at least not done at a pace compatible with the proposed schedules. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Robert, thanks for pushing this forward. It's been discussed on last year's(!) openSUSE conference without any follow up. * Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> [Jul 30. 2013 19:09]:
That's the core of the problem IMHO, factory development needs to scale better. The load to keep factory building/working must be shared by more shoulders. Sharing the load is a matter of a) responsibility and b) availability of information. About responsibility: Having your package / component in factory means you are responsible for it. If a maintainer can't accept this responsibility, then why does he want his package in Factory ? A package in Factory must build, be installable, and working. Availability of information directly relates to that: - build If some change in Factory breaks the build, I want to see it in _my_ (devel) project. This is information is not _easily_ available to me currently. And, no, I don't want to spend like 5 to 10 minutes waiting for the Factory 'Status' page to build up and then have to search for my packages. - installable There should be an automated way to check if a package is installable. Could be an image build or openQA. - working openQA seems to be the right approach. Every package in Factory should have a testcase and be covered by openQA. Klaus -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/31/2013 02:01 PM, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
If some change in Factory breaks the build, I want to see it in _my_ (devel) project.
+1 ... and even more: when I build may package in Base:System, it would be nice to have it also (tried to) built against a bleeding edge tool chain. If that fails, I wold be able to react long before that tool's bleeding egde version goes into Base:Build and Factory. That means on the other hand that the packages required for building (like GCC, make, autotools, coreutils, etc.) provide such bleeding edge versions as early as possible. Sounds fair enough. Have a nice day, Berny -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/31/2013 09:15 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Sounds like an "alpha" or "beta" version of a component that you as a component maintainer of a dependent component gets to choose to build against ;) Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 03:15:46PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
It does not sounds cool to create staging projects for each of 100+ devel projects we do use. What would be worthwhile is to be aware that your package does not build in Factory staging project. From my POW he biggest design flaw in OBS is that is project centric. It is nice and easy to create your own project. But it's impossible for a package maintainer to have any clue what's going around with his package. And we are mostly selfish beasts, so we do take a care about our own stuff. Atm all you can do is to go through a number of random projects, like devel project, factory, various staging** subprojects made by coolo. Simply switch a focus from projects* to package and you'll see how easy it will be package/ devel - OK factory - OK staging-gcc48 - FAIL staging-rpm - FAIL staging-libpng15 - OK * I do consider the idea of devel projects as the most harmfull thing we have to deal with. It is build on the similar ideas like "components", but that seems to be proven it does not work. Interdependencies are real and kill-ya. ** I **do not** rant against staging projects, they are the right way how to have "master" releasable and develop features in topic branches. Regards Michal Vyskocil

Hi, On 07/31/2013 10:15 AM, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
That should certainly eliminate the lack of information I claim at least a group of people have.
I've seen component models work very well and scale very well, yes tooling to manage dependencies is necessary, but I have yet to see a set of dependencies that cannot be pulled apart. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:12:39PM -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:
OK, I'll put you, to some extent, a real world example. ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mvyskocil/maven2-bootstrap.png of course this is a Java niche, which is quite isolated, but still - some of packages needs eclipse, which used to depends on mozilla for html help rendering, so you would easilly ends in a state that every 6 weeks, your tomcat build got broken, because mozilla released new Firefox, or there is problem in gtk/pango/glib, which broke swt, or ... some popular Qt based application linked with Java will be released (http://fatrat.dolezel.info/), which will be integrated to kde, ... So we don't control dependencies, upstream projects do. And you can't isolate the lower levels affecting the upper ones as well you can't control if some upper level component start to require a specific version of lower level. And you even can't control if the dependency chain get crazy like tomcat beeing dependent on glib or KDE requires Java stack. If upstream goes crazy, we must follow or die (or not to release such beast). There is only one way how to isolate you from changes and it's called static linking or bundling and that's no way for Factory. Or to control as much stack as we can. I do consider Factory as Continuous Integration projects, where bad things happen and are expected. And it's usually better to get the broken state earlier than to isolate them in some component, because before release all components will end in one haystack. BTW: in contrast I don't thing that "components" approach for already released products should be bad idea, but that's different story. Regards Michal Vyskocil

Hey, On 31.07.2013 16:15, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
Sounds like another easy-to-implement view on the package. Famous last words. Lets see...
What is has proven is that some people don't really care about their packages and collaboration. I'm rather happy that we are aware of this, realization is the first step to improvement. Henne -- Henne Vogelsang http://www.opensuse.org Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31.07.2013 16:15, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
How about a view that summarizes all linked packages? Greetings, Stephan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFR+isQwFSBhlBjoJYRAko+AKCQ1x6jdowHNSiSw7ELlYqeHx1+oACgv5eo AwIZNCeiOcHcZUna1q4kslg= =KkGX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:32:00AM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi coolo, Please don't summarize all projects by default. This is how OBS search works and I don't want to find a needle in a haystack of random mostly abadoned home projects. I'd say limit it to interesting projects only, which is devel, factory, factory+staging and maybe my own* branches/links. That makes more sense to me. * == where I am a maintainer BTW: there is a next problem with a lazyness, but I am afraid you can't fix that in webui ;-) Regards Michal Vyskocil

On Tuesday 30 July 2013 13:08:50 Robert Schweikert wrote:
Hi all,
This is NOT board intervention, this is just me ;)
This is NOT a SUSE thing, just my personal notes from oSC and such - but I think it's worth sharing: http://blog.jospoortvliet.com/2013/07/osc13-strategy-and-factory.html <snip>
Lots of work, yes, but in the long run we have to make some changes. Thus, the sooner we start the easier it will be.
Agreed, although there's a big risk of long, pointless discussions. I hope for a proposal from Coolo (and the openSUSE team) at some point. /J
Later, Robert

Hi, On 07/31/2013 08:16 AM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
Thanks, and thanks for including a pointer to Stephan's e-mail. After re-reading it I can certainly understand why there was little response. Unfortunately important information about changes in the integration model for Factory were hidden in a message that announced that perl 5.8 integration in Factory and that gcc integration is next. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 31.07.2013 15:54, Robert Schweikert wrote:
That's part of the problem: people don't even read weekly status reports and you expect them to coordinate on more complex things? I think the basic assumptions about developers are these: 1. people are lazy 2. people are simple 3. people don't want to hear what others say Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [Aug 01. 2013 11:34]:
And with such people you want to create a Linux distribution ? Good luck with that. Apparently, many package maintainers belong to a different tribe and openSUSE is still able to crank out new releases. ;-) Klaus -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 08/01/2013 12:03 PM, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
And with such people you want to create a Linux distribution ?
BTW: how are others doing it, e.g. Fedora? I mean, there's no need to reinvent the 1000th wheel if others are probably happy with theirs. ;-) Have a nice day, Berny -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 01.08.2013 12:46, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
They aren't :) Fedora: http://lwn.net/Articles/560492/ Ubuntu: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-... Greetings, Stephan -- You will be honored for contributing your time and skill to a worthy cause. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thursday 2013-08-01 13:55, Stephan Kulow wrote:
So, since everybody is talking about rings, openSUSE should continue the "one ring to rule them all" that is factory. :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 01.08.2013 12:03, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
No. But you need to remember how people are and workaround it. - You need motivation - You need good tools - You need to repeat :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 08/01/2013 05:34 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
May mail may be a bit long, but we are having a discussion and I cannot complain about getting no response ;) Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> wrote:
What if A-2 isn't ready in time for release, but A-1 doesn't work with B-2? - Do you punish the "bleeding edge" worker bees of component B by including the ancient B-1 together with A-1? - Do you punish the "stable, time-tested" worker bees of component A(-1) by only including B-2 and dropping A(-*) from the release? - Multiply this by a zoo of 5 or say, 26 components A-Z, and this will get real messy and a lot of integration time will be needed before release. - "Yay, we where able to release component Z-2 just-in-time for release, so it works with the most recent versions of components A to D. Sadly, components H-i to M-j don't work with Z-2 anymore." I think what is intended to be used together should be build and tested together. Or am I overlooking something? Am I overestimating the testing and integration effort? -- Kind regards Christopher 'm4z' Holm / 686f6c6d "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." --H. L. Mencken -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/31/2013 10:40 AM, 686f6c6d wrote:
The team working on component B has an incentive to help the team of component A to get there. Also consider that we have the same situation today, what if gcc48 staging is not ready to go into Factory in time, then we have to release with gcc47. Today the incentive for others to work in gcc48 staging is non existent, therefore you end up with only a couple of people working on it.
- Do you punish the "stable, time-tested" worker bees of component A(-1) by only including B-2 and dropping A(-*) from the release?
Again, the basic situation is no different than today, if a package does not build with the stuff that is in Factory and the maintainer does not fix it and Stephan has better things to do the package gets dropped. Whether it is time tested and was in the previous release are secondary considerations. In the component model people working on B have an incentive (self interest) to help people working on A to move forward, or both might disappear.
The more one has to integrate at once the harder it is and if the incentives for participating in the integration work are low few people will participate. These are both symptoms we observe today. As Stephan puts it "no one cares about Factory" == low participation in the integration work. In a component model the incentive to help others that work on components one depends on are built in. But there are most likely other solutions, we just have to find them. Creating incentives (self interest), distributing responsibility, and autonomy are the underlying principals that I believe can work. In our current model incentives are low, no self interest to work on Factory, autonomy is low, you get gcc when someone else decides you get it, and responsibility is low, people do not feel responsible for Factory. You cannot fight human nature, or as Michal pointed out in another reply in this thread "we are mostly selfish beasts, so we do take a care about our own stuff". And maybe it can be as simple as presenting the data differently as Michal proposes. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (24)
-
686f6c6d
-
Archie Cobbs
-
Bernhard Voelker
-
Claudio Freire
-
Cristian Rodríguez
-
Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar
-
Felix Miata
-
Frederic Crozat
-
Guido Berhoerster
-
Henne Vogelsang
-
Jan Engelhardt
-
Jos Poortvliet
-
Klaus Kaempf
-
Marcus Meissner
-
Marguerite Su
-
Michal Vyskocil
-
Per Jessen
-
Rajko
-
Robert Kaiser
-
Robert Schweikert
-
Stefan Seyfried
-
Stephan Barth
-
Stephan Kulow
-
Togan Muftuoglu