Active Topics
-
Is there a section to talk about Java ME? Apps, etc. (0)
to General by Kalatti - 1 day, 14 hrs ago -
Extra softwares in Sailfish using CLI, repositories, etc (117)
to SailfishOS by nieldk - 3 days, 11 hrs ago -
Firefox with Leste (6)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 8 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-12-30
, 15:21
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#12
|
Seems to me that a combination of three strategies would cover all the bases for "open" packages:
1) Continued inclusion in periodic, monolithic, fully tested and supported releases (eg. FIASCO images and SSU)
2) Incremental, "release when ready" packages, independent from monolithic releases (but with quasi official support)
3) "Nightly" builds for testing purposes (no support - bleeding edge testers only)
2) and 3) could use new repositories designed for the purpose, which would need to be added or enabled after the user has accepted a suitable disclaimer. Not sure the brainstorm really addresses the above, but it seems to at least touch on #2.
I wonder though if the availability of new packages might cause problems for the SSU process.
1) Continued inclusion in periodic, monolithic, fully tested and supported releases (eg. FIASCO images and SSU)
2) Incremental, "release when ready" packages, independent from monolithic releases (but with quasi official support)
3) "Nightly" builds for testing purposes (no support - bleeding edge testers only)
2) and 3) could use new repositories designed for the purpose, which would need to be added or enabled after the user has accepted a suitable disclaimer. Not sure the brainstorm really addresses the above, but it seems to at least touch on #2.
I wonder though if the availability of new packages might cause problems for the SSU process.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Milhouse For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-12-30
, 17:11
|
|
Posts: 81 |
Thanked: 115 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#13
|
Originally Posted by Milhouse
Do you mean something like PPA's for Ubuntu?
Seems to me that a combination of three strategies would cover all the bases for "open" packages:
1) Continued inclusion in periodic, monolithic, fully tested and supported releases (eg. FIASCO images and SSU)
2) Incremental, "release when ready" packages, independent from monolithic releases (but with quasi official support)
3) "Nightly" builds for testing purposes (no support - bleeding edge testers only)
2) and 3) could use new repositories designed for the purpose, which would need to be added or enabled after the user has accepted a suitable disclaimer. Not sure the brainstorm really addresses the above, but it seems to at least touch on #2.
I use PPA's all the time to get newer versions of software which didn't make it into the release.
I wonder though if the availability of new packages might cause problems for the SSU process.
Even with all the extra junk, and unofficial updates to core packages that I installed from the PPA's my machine had no issues upgrading from jaunty to karmic.
Last edited by iKneaDough; 2009-12-30 at 17:15. Reason: typo
|
|
2009-12-30
, 19:22
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#14
|
Originally Posted by iKneaDough
Not specifically, although one thing I would hope we can avoid is a proliferation of repositories each containing a single package, but an automated build process would of course be very desirable.
Do you mean something like PPA's for Ubuntu?
.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Milhouse For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-01-12
, 00:00
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#15
|
I, for one, love ATI/AMD's policy.
They release each version on the 15th each month. Version is 9.12 (2009, month December). Whatever they fix they integrate and release each month.
Sometimes they have 2 fixes, sometimes they have 100, depending on what is needed and what new devices enter. The wait isn't very long and it certainly makes the user sleep easier knowing there's no sleeping on the job. I, for one, consider it a high selling point on ATI GPUs and, frankly, it's the only thing I buy.
Do you think this is worth submitting? It's basically the opposite of "don't let the user know we work on it" policy.
They release each version on the 15th each month. Version is 9.12 (2009, month December). Whatever they fix they integrate and release each month.
Sometimes they have 2 fixes, sometimes they have 100, depending on what is needed and what new devices enter. The wait isn't very long and it certainly makes the user sleep easier knowing there's no sleeping on the job. I, for one, consider it a high selling point on ATI GPUs and, frankly, it's the only thing I buy.
Do you think this is worth submitting? It's basically the opposite of "don't let the user know we work on it" policy.
__________________
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
 |
|
2010-01-17
, 23:32
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#16
|
Originally Posted by evad
I don't even think it's wishful.
As an additional note to this discussion/brainstorm is that it'd be actually very helpful for everyone if Nokia would "officially" communicate to Maemo Community Council (hence to all of us) what is on their current development plate, ergo what's their platform development roadmap for near'ish future - but in quite low, single feature-wise level.
So, apart from bugfixes which are more-or-less traced via Bugzilla, it would be nice to know that "we are working on feature XYZ, we can't give you exact release date, but please stay tuned". That way end-users would know what to expect in future - but also that scenario would be very helpful for developers that are planning to develop (or already started developing) apps designed to cover these feature gaps.
I know that's just wishful thinking and we'll probably never going to see such communication in place, but I generally think that's a grand idea to consider.
The less secrets the Council has the better. What can be "half communicated" is already communicated through bugzilla & brainstorm resolutions. Precisely the origin of this thread is that you are seeing bug fixed without releases of apps. That is communication in advance.As for the current top solution proposed:
Solution #2: Independent applications
Posted on 2009-12-03 11:58 UTC by Ville Reijonen.
Instead of monolithic releases, all or nothing, have individual independent updates to applications when they are ready to release. The OSS applications should be independent even if Nokia supported. They should follow their own bugfix needs and release schedules. At least follow "release early, release often" with the OSS part of Maemo even if the closed core can not do that.
Still, the Maemo team thinks that it's safer to organize maintenance releases and be quite between them, unless there is a critical bug with a fix ready. Testing is done on a regular basis but it can be concentrated on candidate releases. The same happens with the communication with end users. Not everybody wants/bothers to see the icon blinking having to go through an update if they don't get something "significant" in exchange.
I'm an Ubuntu user and almost every day there is some fresh packages to update. I do it most of times as it's part of my Linux user routine but... do I see the benefits every time? Not really, as said is a routine. I'm fine with the 6 months updates and, to be honest, I'm not that in a hurry to update Ubuntu releases as it was before.
In 3,5 months we have seen 3,5 releases: Summit release, sales releases, PR1.0.1 (that's the 0.5) and PR1.1. This is quite frequent already, if you think of it. I'm not saying we will keep this rhythm but...
| The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-01-18
, 00:12
|
|
Posts: 376 |
Thanked: 511 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Greece
|
#17
|
Originally Posted by qgil
I've created a brainstorm for this and added an idea which (I believe that) solves almost all problems. Have a look here
Still, the Maemo team thinks that it's safer to organize maintenance releases and be quite between them, unless there is a critical bug with a fix ready. Testing is done on a regular basis but it can be concentrated on candidate releases. The same happens with the communication with end users. Not everybody wants/bothers to see the icon blinking having to go through an update if they don't get something "significant" in exchange.
|
|
2010-01-18
, 00:15
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#18
|
Thanks, but please create the corresponding thread for that brainstorm proposal not to mix discussions. Thanks!
|
|
2010-01-18
, 00:19
|
|
Posts: 376 |
Thanked: 511 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Greece
|
#19
|
Originally Posted by qgil
Do you believe that I should add the proposal as a solution to *this* brainstorm instead of creating a new one?
Thanks, but please create the corresponding thread for that brainstorm proposal not to mix discussions. Thanks!
EDIT: I did just that. Feel free to vote
Last edited by v13; 2010-01-18 at 00:32.
| The Following User Says Thank You to v13 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-01-18
, 11:48
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by qgil
Importantly, the Ubuntu user can choose how often to check for updates - daily, weekly etc. - which isn't the case with Maemo, which seems to have a hard coded daily check... so this would need fixing if incremental updates were to be made available, and perhaps should be considered as an enhancement in any case.
I'm an Ubuntu user and almost every day there is some fresh packages to update. I do it most of times as it's part of my Linux user routine but... do I see the benefits every time? Not really, as said is a routine. I'm fine with the 6 months updates and, to be honest, I'm not that in a hurry to update Ubuntu releases as it was before.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Milhouse For This Useful Post: | ||
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org