just curious. even a general hint would be useful. imminent? not so imminent? not even a gleam in someone's eye?
rday
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just curious. even a general hint would be useful. imminent? not so imminent? not even a gleam in someone's eye?
I think we're back to the days of the answer being "when it's ready."
--Jeremy
On 27 Aug 2003, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just curious. even a general hint would be useful. imminent? not so imminent? not even a gleam in someone's eye?
I think we're back to the days of the answer being "when it's ready."
and, normally, that would be the official position. but i don't think it's really an acceptable answer given that an estimated date *was* advertised some time back. if memory serves, i recall something like august 18 for an update.
IMHO, if RH is going to make these promises, they should at least try to keep them. if not, then just go with "when it's ready." but please -- let's not waffle back and forth.
rday
and, normally, that would be the official position. but i don't think it's really an acceptable answer given that an estimated date *was* advertised some time back. if memory serves, i recall something like august 18 for an update.
IMHO, if RH is going to make these promises, they should at least try to keep them. if not, then just go with "when it's ready." but please -- let's not waffle back and forth.
My guess: rhl beta2 will come out when the new rhl.redhat.com is ready
so they can do both announcements together.
-sv
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 15:35, seth vidal a écrit :
My guess: rhl beta2 will come out when the new rhl.redhat.com is ready
so they can do both announcements together.
... Shhh.... Please be quiet about this. It is supposed to be top secret. ...
-sv
and, normally, that would be the official position. but i don't think it's really an acceptable answer given that an estimated date *was* advertised some time back. if memory serves, i recall something like august 18 for an update.
A computer software company missed a deadline. Shock horror 8)
IMHO, if RH is going to make these promises, they should at least try to keep them. if not, then just go with "when it's ready." but please -- let's not waffle back and forth.
The answer is "When its ready", and part of the "its ready" is making sure we can avoid getting into the same situation again
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
The answer is "When its ready", and part of the "its ready" is making sure we can avoid getting into the same situation again
as i already mentioned, that would normally be a reasonable response if *red hat* had not already suggested a date for the next beta, as i recall. but there's another reason why the "when it's ready" answer is kind of irrelevant.
we're not talking about an official release here. we're talking about a *beta*, which we as beta testers *expect* to have flaws, glitches and bugs. so what does it even mean to say that a beta is "ready" anyway?
from the timestamps on one of the download mirrors, it seems that this beta has been out for about five weeks now. i don't think it's unreasonable to think that there have been enough bug reports and fixes to let the beta testers have a crack at an improved version.
no one expects it to be perfect. but it would be nice to have a crack at a newer release that we *should* expect to have fewer bugs so we can start the testing process over again and push it along even further.
i mean, really. it *is* just a beta.
rday
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
we're not talking about an official release here. we're talking about a *beta*, which we as beta testers *expect* to have flaws, glitches and bugs. so what does it even mean to say that a beta is "ready" anyway?
I guess you'd want to have a beta on a certain quality level to make sure it really gets tested... if it won't install on a lot of systems or is completely unusable you won't get the testing you like. Even a small bug like the non-starting panel from rawhide will cause a lot of potential testers to just give up.
i mean, really. it *is* just a beta.
For everything else, there's rawhide 8)
Klaasjan
Hi Robert,
from the timestamps on one of the download mirrors, it seems that this beta has been out for about five weeks now. i don't think it's unreasonable to think that there have been enough bug reports and fixes to let the beta testers have a crack at an improved version.
What do you expect to be different (apart from the installer) from your current beta updated to Rawhide? Shouldn't that render exactly the same system? Or am I missing something?
By the way, what happened to your daylight savings?
Bye, Leonard.
-- How clean is a war when you shoot around nukelar waste? Stop the use of depleted uranium ammo! End all weapons of mass destruction.
Quoting "Robert P. J. Day" rpjday@mindspring.com:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
The answer is "When its ready", and part of the "its ready" is making sure we can avoid getting into the same situation again
as i already mentioned, that would normally be a reasonable response if *red hat* had not already suggested a date for the next beta, as i recall. but there's another reason why the "when it's ready" answer is kind of irrelevant.
we're not talking about an official release here. we're talking about a *beta*, which we as beta testers *expect* to have flaws, glitches and bugs. so what does it even mean to say that a beta is "ready" anyway?
from the timestamps on one of the download mirrors, it seems that this beta has been out for about five weeks now. i don't think it's unreasonable to think that there have been enough bug reports and fixes to let the beta testers have a crack at an improved version.
no one expects it to be perfect. but it would be nice to have a crack at a newer release that we *should* expect to have fewer bugs so we can start the testing process over again and push it along even further.
i mean, really. it *is* just a beta.
I think Alan means something entirely different. The *software* is out there in the form of rawhide - what do you expect the beta to have if not that stuff? The way I read Alan's comment is that the initial announcement raised incorrect assumptions/legal issues/whatever and they want to get that kind of stuff right before "relaunching."
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 15:23, Jeremy Portzer a écrit :
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just curious. even a general hint would be useful. imminent? not so imminent? not even a gleam in someone's eye?
I think we're back to the days of the answer being "when it's ready."
RHLP inaugurate a new kind of open project : - "wait and see"
The RedHat touch :-)
--Jeremy
Geez. You people are f*ing impossible. [A previous email used a lot more expletives.. but most of them were anatomically impossible for non contortionists]
Lets see.. Red Hat says there are a lot of problems but cant go into them, they say that they are working on things but cant say when it will be ready, and they have said it isnt technical problems. A roadmap of corporate speak says that there have been some legal/contract questions raised by outside parties that Red Hat has to answer before it can go ahead. What are those problems.. I dont know... I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that if they could tell us they would. If I didnt trust them somewhat, I would walk away versus giving sarcastic/cynical comments every 4 hours.
On 27 Aug 2003, Féliciano Matias wrote:
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 15:23, Jeremy Portzer a écrit :
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just curious. even a general hint would be useful. imminent? not so imminent? not even a gleam in someone's eye?
I think we're back to the days of the answer being "when it's ready."
RHLP inaugurate a new kind of open project :
- "wait and see"
The RedHat touch :-)
--Jeremy
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 18:24, Stephen Smoogen a écrit :
Geez. You people are f*ing impossible.
Don't get me wrong. I love RedHat ! RedHat does almost all right. I use RedHat since 4.2.
But i don't like how Redhat manage the communication around RHLP.
I am not asking RedHat to bring a great website tomorrow.
If RedHat take 1 hour to create a webpage with : - we plan to have a complete new website near September. - issue about Trademark are currently in study. - gnome 2.4 will be in Cambridge. - beta2 is put back to ... This is the new scheduler : ... ... it's enough for me.
Here is a copy of the announcement (July 21): http://lwn.net/Articles/40521/
We changed the rules. We said our Linux should be your Linux. Just as most of the software in Red Hat Linux is developed in an open fashion, so should Red Hat Linux itself; driven by those who develop, test, document, and translate. To accomplish this, +we're opening up our process+.
Check the current http://rhl.redhat.com/ one mouth later : - "Red Hat remains excited about the open development process announced on Monday. We're currently reworking the content of this site to clarify questions people have raised since our announcement. We'll have the site restored as soon as possible."
I can't be happy with this. And more important, Debian/Gentoo/Mandrake/... users will not be attracted with this.
Mailing-list and "wait please" answers are not enough.
This is my opinion at the present time.
I am an old redhat user and confident about the future of RHLP. But think about other users/contributers.
PS: Sorry for my poor English.
[A previous email used a lot more expletives.. but most of them were anatomically impossible for non contortionists]
Lets see.. Red Hat says there are a lot of problems but cant go into them, they say that they are working on things but cant say when it will be ready, and they have said it isnt technical problems. A roadmap of corporate speak says that there have been some legal/contract questions raised by outside parties that Red Hat has to answer before it can go ahead. What are those problems.. I dont know... I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that if they could tell us they would. If I didnt trust them somewhat, I would walk away versus giving sarcastic/cynical comments every 4 hours.
On 27 Aug 2003, Féliciano Matias wrote:
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 15:23, Jeremy Portzer a écrit :
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just curious. even a general hint would be useful. imminent? not so imminent? not even a gleam in someone's eye?
I think we're back to the days of the answer being "when it's ready."
RHLP inaugurate a new kind of open project :
- "wait and see"
The RedHat touch :-)
--Jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27 Aug 2003 20:28:11 +0200, Féliciano Matias wrote:
Check the current http://rhl.redhat.com/ one mouth later :
- "Red Hat remains excited about the open development process announced
on Monday. We're currently reworking the content of this site to clarify questions people have raised since our announcement. We'll have the site restored as soon as possible."
I can't be happy with this. And more important, Debian/Gentoo/Mandrake/... users will not be attracted with this.
Mailing-list and "wait please" answers are not enough.
This is my opinion at the present time.
I am an old redhat user and confident about the future of RHLP. But think about other users/contributers.
PS: Sorry for my poor English.
The alternative doesn't look any better. The web pages alone would not get the RHL project going, especially not if they are incomplete and don't answer important questions raised by potential contributors (e.g. on infrastructure, how, and when). The result would be chaos and disappointment worse than the current situation.
- --
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:42, Féliciano Matias wrote:
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 15:23, Jeremy Portzer a écrit :
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just curious. even a general hint would be useful. imminent? not so imminent? not even a gleam in someone's eye?
I think we're back to the days of the answer being "when it's ready."
RHLP inaugurate a new kind of open project :
- "wait and see"
The RedHat touch :-)
That's not new. Just go take a tour of sourceforge.net, *most* of those projects are that way!
whoa, i didn't mean for this thread to get quite this heated, sorry about that. i just felt like making two points.
first, if RH wants to pre-announce beta dates, that's cool. if they want to do the "when it's ready" thing, that's also cool. it's just silly and inconsistent to flip-flop between the two.
and second, i don't think the idea of "when it's ready" is as critical for betas as for official releases, for obvious reasons. no one expects perfection if it's a beta. it's just that, for those of us who have been running the beta since we could get our greedy little mitts on it, it would be nice to get a newer version and start testing all over again. after all, that's why we volunteer to be beta testers.
rday
Tonight on Celebrity Death Match: Eric Raymond vs Darl McBride
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 03:28 pm, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
it's just that, for those of us who have been running the beta since we could get our greedy little mitts on it, it would be nice to get a newer version and start testing all over again. after all, that's why we volunteer to be beta testers.
Some of us have other reasons to participate. The delay will force me to work during the Geek Cruise instead of lazing about. Will I be seeing anyone on the list there?
trying hard not to prolong this thread, but i just had to pass on an accidental observation. i was installing the current beta on someone else's laptop, just leaning back in the chair, watching the amusing screens go by, and was intrigued to see one of those screens give a precise timeline for beta releases, which included
beta 2: aug 18 beta 3: sep 15 official: oct 6
strangely, none of the release dates said anything like "when it's ready". :-)
rday
This brings up an important point I'd like to make to people. In the past, Red Hat did not announce any dates for it's products. The main reason for this, was because any form of date, no matter how estimated or ball park, will always be interpreted by many people as an official promise. When that date comes and goes, and for whatever reason the software isn't available, those people will become upset and rant and rave.
Considering now that we have announced some dates in the beta installer screens, and we've indeed not been able to meet one of the dates, this very much illustrates that Red Hat's previous policy of not pre-announcing dates of things was very well thought out and rational, because now that the date has been missed, we are seeing people rant and rave about it.
If people want to see estimated dates for things, then they need to also realize that such estimates are JUST estimates, and that they can be bumped forward and backward as needed for whatever reasons, and that a completely detailed explanation of the reasons will not always be forthcoming.
Basically, wether or not any date is announced for a release from *ANY* software project, any software project will be truely only released "when it is ready" to be released. If no date has been given, then it just sort of "happens". If some estimation of a date has been made, and the date does get met, then the target date was met. If an estimation date is not met, then the software and other things that need to be done in order for the given project to be "ready for release" will naturally by definition be ready "when it is ready".
When will that be? That's hard to say with 100% accuracy, as anything would at best be a complete estimation, and just like the first target date did not get met, any other estimation date also potentially may not be met.
Thus proves the rationality of the previous policy of not pre-announcing release dates.
Personally, I'm not a fan of estimated release dates of anything at all, as they almost always are never met in the software industry, and that includes both the open source software and the proprietary software. Look at the Linux kernel's official projected release dates for 2.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.4.0, and 2.6.0. How close to Linus' original estimates did the kernel come out? What about his second and third date estimates? XFree86.org claims they will release new XFree86 releases every 6 months. In practice it is every 10 to 12 months or more. During that process, just like with any project, they are swamped with people asking "when is the new release coming out". And people want SOME answer.
The problem is that the future can never be predicted, and so it is totally impossible to give a release date for something that is 100% accurate. And when a date _is_ given, and that date can not be met, it is equally impossible to estimate how much longer it will be until a given project does get released.
So, wether or not someone wants a solid release date for some project being developed, or even just a rough estimate of when a project will be released, in ALL CASES, the one and only true answer that is 100% accurate, is "When it is ready, and we can release it.", and _ANY_ other estimate or date given, is totally impossible to guarantee with reasonable certainty.
So dates truely do not provide people with any truely valueable information, since the information is not something that can be 100% relied upon.
Of course, this is all just my own personal opinion, and does not reflect any views of Red Hat.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:46:23AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
Thus proves the rationality of the previous policy of not pre-announcing release dates.
...
The problem is that the future can never be predicted, and so it is totally impossible to give a release date for something that is 100% accurate. And when a date _is_ given, and that date can not be met, it is equally impossible to estimate how much longer it will be until a given project does get released.
Bravo.
I'd add one point, which is that it is usually possible to assert the negative with much greater certainty; something like "since we plan another beta cycle, RHL will *not* be released before 1 October". That allows a rational person to decide "OK, let's get on with installing RHL 9 now, but plan for the changes in the RHL 10 beta."
The whiners will continue to whine, but that will never change.
Regards,
Bill Rugolsky
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
This brings up an important point I'd like to make to people. ... available, those people will become upset and rant and rave.
Considering now that we have announced some dates in the beta ... missed, we are seeing people rant and rave about it.
If people want to see estimated dates for things, then they need to also realize that such estimates are JUST estimates, and that
Maybe this needs to be listed in 26 point font with bright red capital letters next to any dates, with a little * afterwards pointing to the fine print below.
Basically, wether or not any date is announced for a release from *ANY* software project, any software project will be truely only released "when it is ready" to be released.
Sadly, this isn't true. Have you ever used Netscape 6? The proxy dialog didn't even work right ;( I am very glad that redhat releases when it's ready instead of when they said it would be ready. It may be frustrating at times to wait a long time for software to be released, but I think it is far more disappointing to wait and then have something unusable released.
If no date has been ... also potentially may not be met.
Thus proves the rationality of the previous policy of not pre-announcing release dates. ... So dates truely do not provide people with any truely valueable information, since the information is not something that can be 100% relied upon.
I agree with you, but I also write software, and people do always want to know. I think they don't realize that programming work is typically not done very uniformly. Maybe they immagine I can write 100 lines of code per hour, and the project will be 4000 lines of code, and so take 40 hours, which is one work week. They might not realize that one day I might write 1500 lines of code, and that the next, I might write only 5 lines. They might not know how tracking down a stupid bug took 4 days, or that sometimes I actually plan before typing.
At any rate, you're not going to keep people from asking, and "when it's ready" sounds smart-ass, no matter how accurate it is.
I think the best solution is this: Put up a conspicuous estimated schedule on the web site where it will be very easy for everyone to find. Also include in big bold letters that it isn't accurate, and might not be met. Every few days, update it. It doesn't have to be remotely accurate, but if the project is going to miss the date, just move the date up a month or something. Then when people ask, you can just say "look at http://rhl.redhat.com/sched.html" and get back to work.
Of course, this is all just my own personal opinion, and does not reflect any views of Red Hat.
of course ;)
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
-- noah silva
-------- From: "Mike A. Harris" mharris@redhat.com
Considering now that we have announced some dates in the beta installer screens, and we've indeed not been able to meet one of the dates, this very much illustrates that Red Hat's previous policy of not pre-announcing dates of things was very well thought out and rational, because now that the date has been missed, we are seeing people rant and rave about it.
Since this is intended to be a community project, I have viewed these release dates as managerial goals to help the redhat external participants manage their resources. We have a loose idea of when the next milestone is so we can prioritize our self imposed tasks:
1. install or upgrade to new release 2. start reporting burst of bugs from the errors found only in first use/install phase 3. watch bugs, track personally important issues, make patches etc. if we want fixed in next release 4. get some paying work done 5. notice new release is nigh and try to push our personal agendas some more, e.g., new kernel patch for touchpads or something 6. stabilize systems for upgrade, make backups etc. 7. repeat
Having goal dates makes the above much easier, IMHO.
Joel
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:33:41AM -0400, Joel Young wrote:
Since this is intended to be a community project, I have viewed these release dates as managerial goals to help the redhat external participants manage their resources.
Yup. That is certainly one of the points of discussing the dates. And your points about scheduling your own work on it are actually points that we've been bringing up in our internal discussions about the changes we need to make, and they've been taken into account as our plans firm up.
While we're not quite sticking to our dates this time (whoever suggested that we want to have the web site back up in all its glory before the next beta is quite right, by the way), I think that the process will improve based on the changes we're making and the feedback we've been getting here.
I would like to mention, however, that the daily pushes to RHN are a big change that we hope will affect the way that the whole cycle works. We want to focus on testing new stuff regularily, so that we find new bugs soonest after introducing them and have a better idea where to find the mistakes we made. :-) This means that the dates we put out new ISOs matters much less than it used to. We're explicitly trying to push to a new, better process; one that we think will make the whole testing process more flexible and productive.
So I'd like to encourage everyone to subscribe to the RHN channel and test it as you have time available; while we're working on getting the site up again and another set of ISOs out, they should not be a prerequisite for testing.
I'd also like to thank the folks who have been following the RHN channel and rawhide while we've been essentially web-silent. We certainly haven't stopped the technical development process while we've been resolving the other questions that caused us to take down the web site...
michaelkjohnson
"He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book." Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
Hi Michael,
I would like to mention, however, that the daily pushes to RHN are a big change that we hope will affect the way that the whole cycle works.
We're explicitly trying to push to a new, better process; one that we think will make the whole testing process more flexible and productive.
So I'd like to encourage everyone to subscribe to the RHN channel and test it as you have time available;
Is there any difference between the RHN channel and RawHide via ftp? In other words, is there any reason to subscribe to RHN instead of just using my local RawHide mirror? It's probably much faster to use my local mirror than an overloaded server somewhere in the US.
Bye, Leonard.
-- How clean is a war when you shoot around nukelar waste? Stop the use of depleted uranium ammo! End all weapons of mass destruction.
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 04:08:27PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Is there any difference between the RHN channel and RawHide via ftp? In other words, is there any reason to subscribe to RHN instead of just using my local RawHide mirror? It's probably much faster to use my local mirror than an overloaded server somewhere in the US.
AFAIK the main difference is that they are pushed out at different times and so won't necessarily be in perfect sync with each other. They are based on the same stream of packages.
michaelkjohnson
"He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book." Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
Hi Michael,
AFAIK the main difference is that they are pushed out at different times and so won't necessarily be in perfect sync with each other. They are based on the same stream of packages.
What would be the delay between the package being available via RHN and Rawhide (ftp) (I presume RHN comes first)?
Leonard.
-- How clean is a war when you shoot around nukelar waste? Stop the use of depleted uranium ammo! End all weapons of mass destruction.
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
AFAIK the main difference is that they are pushed out at different times and so won't necessarily be in perfect sync with each other. They are based on the same stream of packages.
What would be the delay between the package being available via RHN and Rawhide (ftp) (I presume RHN comes first)?
Rawhide FTP happens around 5am eastern time.
RHN push happens anytime between 6am and noon.
-- Elliot For peace of mind, resign as general manager of the universe.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
This brings up an important point I'd like to make to people. In the past, Red Hat did not announce any dates for it's products. The main reason for this, was because any form of date, no matter how estimated or ball park, will always be interpreted by many people as an official promise. When that date comes and goes, and for whatever reason the software isn't available, those people will become upset and rant and rave.
The rest snipped.
Ya know, Mike, as a reader of this list who hasn't posted to this thread up until now, and, has never asked when a release was going to be out in all my time on these lists since Zoot, I personally have never minded the questions on that topic. What I do find pretty obnoxious is the loud braying of the "how dare you even think of asking such a stupid and taboo question" chorus. Folks, how 'bout, the next time you see a question such as, "when is the next beta or full release coming out", posted t to the list, why don't y'all wait to see if someone from RH who is in a position to know feels like answering the question. If they do, then it should be settled. If they don't, what on earth is the good in expressing your outrage at the fact that the question was asked in the first place?
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
This brings up an important point I'd like to make to people. In the past, Red Hat did not announce any dates for it's products. The main reason for this, was because any form of date, no matter how estimated or ball park, will always be interpreted by many people as an official promise. When that date comes and goes, and for whatever reason the software isn't available, those people will become upset and rant and rave.
The rest snipped.
(sorry to piggyback on your post but ...)
no, mike, we don't "become upset and rant and rave." we post a simple question, asking if there *is* any ETA for the next beta. which is a perfectly reasonable question, particularly when a specific release date has already been advertised.
see the difference?
rday
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
no, mike, we don't "become upset and rant and rave." we post a simple question, asking if there *is* any ETA for the next beta. which is a perfectly reasonable question, particularly when a specific release date has already been advertised.
see the difference?
The difference is that asking it every day to get an answer of 'not yet, we are still working on it.' is annoying and after a while abusive. It also gets you added to kill files.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
no, mike, we don't "become upset and rant and rave." we post a simple question, asking if there *is* any ETA for the next beta. which is a perfectly reasonable question, particularly when a specific release date has already been advertised.
see the difference?
The difference is that asking it every day to get an answer of 'not yet, we are still working on it.' is annoying and after a while abusive. It also gets you added to kill files.
well, let's see here. give that my pine sent-mail folder shows that i asked about this on exactly two occasions this month:
1) mon, aug 11, making it clear that i was *not* asking when the next beta would be out, but more specifically if i was remembering correctly that there had in fact been an advertised ETA, and
2) tue, aug 25, asking about an ETA since the clearly-advertised ETA was in fact days passed (making such a query eminently reasonable, IMHO),
we can quickly conclude two things:
a) i most certainly have *not* been asking every day (and i'm not responsible for others' posts in this thread), and
b) you're a jerk for suggesting i did, and i'd be just pleased as punch to be in your kill file. file away.
it's been a long, tiring week, and i just have no patience for snotty, patronizing condescension at the moment.
rday
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
we can quickly conclude two things:
a) i most certainly have *not* been asking every day (and i'm not responsible for others' posts in this thread), and
b) you're a jerk for suggesting i did, and i'd be just pleased as punch to be in your kill file. file away.
it's been a long, tiring week, and i just have no patience for snotty, patronizing condescension at the moment.
Same here... I am just tired of what after a long week looks to be 'Red Hat are liars because they missed the deadline' emails that have been filling up my mailbox with the thousand or so 'dont send me another sobig' emails that are sure my Linux box is sending it out.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
a) i most certainly have *not* been asking every day (and i'm not responsible for others' posts in this thread), and
b) you're a jerk for suggesting i did, and i'd be just pleased as punch to be in your kill file. file away.
it's been a long, tiring week, and i just have no patience for snotty, patronizing condescension at the moment.
And I can't even apologize nicely either. Blech. I will try again on Monday when I have slept some.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 06:33:41PM -0600, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
it's been a long, tiring week, and i just have no patience for snotty, patronizing condescension at the moment.
And I can't even apologize nicely either. Blech. I will try again on Monday when I have slept some.
Isn't Monday Sept 1st Labour Day in the USA. In that case enjoy the long week-end, seems needed for everybody :-) !
Daniel
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 06:33:41PM -0600, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
it's been a long, tiring week, and i just have no patience for snotty, patronizing condescension at the moment.
And I can't even apologize nicely either. Blech. I will try again on Monday when I have slept some.
Isn't Monday Sept 1st Labour Day in the USA. In that case enjoy the long week-end, seems needed for everybody :-) !
Thanks, but as a system administrator.. I have found that holidays become work days because there are no users or projects inconvenienced by upgrades, downtimes, etc etc. :). [Maybe I can take of UnLabour Day.]
On Thursday 28 August 2003 09:46 am, Mike A. Harris wrote:
Thus proves the rationality of the previous policy of not pre-announcing release dates.
Personally, I'm not a fan of estimated release dates of anything at all, as they almost always are never met in the software industry
I agree. But there are those who must accomplish real work around the release. Having estimated dates is a valuable benefit in planning and I certainly appreciate them. However, I seem to be in the minority in realizing that they _are_ estimates and that Red Hat is in completely charge of when the thing is released.
BTW, if it matters, a final release date for next year in mid-August would be great. Can I make this a feature request? 8)
Le jeu 28/08/2003 à 15:46, Mike A. Harris a écrit :
[...]
Of course, this is all just my own personal opinion, and does not reflect any views of Red Hat.
Who knows the views of RedHat ?
Is there someone at RedHat that can answers this very simple question : - When come severn beta2 ?
Who, at RedHat, takes the decision to release Beta2 ?
"When it is ready" is not an answer. Possible answers are : - when the new top-secret http://rhl.redhat.com/ is finished. - when gnome 2.[34] integration is finished. - when there is no more bugs in bugzilla. - there is no more beta2. Just use up2date/yum/apt/... - etc...
I don't blame RedHat for not respecting the initial scheduler. I blame RedHat for not fully keeping the promise to open RHLP process.
Féliciano Matias (feliciano.matias@free.fr) said:
Le jeu 28/08/2003 à 15:46, Mike A. Harris a écrit :
[...]
Of course, this is all just my own personal opinion, and does not reflect any views of Red Hat.
Who knows the views of RedHat ?
Bill
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 16:37, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Féliciano Matias (feliciano.matias@free.fr) said:
Who knows the views of RedHat ?
In all seriousness, thanks. This small update makes me feel a lot better that RH took the time to address our concerns and put out a *target* (I realize that Sep 15th might turn into the 18th or even 22nd or something) so that I don't have to check rhl.redhat.com every morning as I've been doing. Something so simple really makes a big difference.
Despite the vitriol that seems to have crept into the list lately (some of which I've been unfortunately guilty of myself), I think we're all -- RH and outsiders alike -- served to recall that the goal here is to produce another useful and cutting-edge distribution while simultaneously opening up the process to fit the Free Software and Open Sources ethoses (ethoi?) even more than Red Hat already does. If those of us who are cynical by nature will keep that in mind, and those who aren't so cynical will refrain from the pointless ad hominem attacks, I personally think that this new direction will really accomplish something.
Quoting Kyle Maxwell kylem@xwell.org:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 16:37, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Féliciano Matias (feliciano.matias@free.fr) said:
Who knows the views of RedHat ?
In all seriousness, thanks. This small update makes me feel a lot better that RH took the time to address our concerns and put out a *target* (I realize that Sep 15th might turn into the 18th or even 22nd or something) so that I don't have to check rhl.redhat.com every morning as I've been doing. Something so simple really makes a big difference.
Indeed. When the website was pulled out with "we remain excited about the announcement on Monday" the lack of any dates suggested that ok the website will be down for a few days and when *nothing* was happening there (visible to externals that is) it started feeling.. well, kind of annoying. Thanks.
Le jeu 28/08/2003 à 23:37, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
Féliciano Matias (feliciano.matias@free.fr) said:
Le jeu 28/08/2003 à 15:46, Mike A. Harris a écrit :
[...]
Of course, this is all just my own personal opinion, and does not reflect any views of Red Hat.
Who knows the views of RedHat ?
Better than nothing.
It so simple to make things clear ...
I don't tease you anymore. Hum, until September 15th :-)
Bill
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:00:44 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
screens give a precise timeline for beta releases, which included
beta 2: aug 18 beta 3: sep 15 official: oct 6
strangely, none of the release dates said anything like "when it's ready". :-)
One of the issues delaying beta 2 is the move to include Gnome 2.4, with the last of the Gnome 2.4 beta packages only just now finally be released into the severn update channel I believe.
Folks, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerald Henriksen" ghenriks@rogers.com
One of the issues delaying beta 2 is the move to include Gnome 2.4, with the last of the Gnome 2.4 beta packages only just now finally be released into the severn update channel I believe.
Unlike what some have suggested, the quality of a released beta is not trivial.
There's an expectation that a later beta of a product will be in "better shape." Unfortunately, that's not fair, given the desire to incorporate packages such as the newest GNOME. So Red Hat has additional work to do.
If Red Hat were to release a later beta that was in noticably worse shape, I'm sure we'd see a lot of critical media on the topic. As the market leader, Red Hat is held to a higher standard.
Any loss of face with respect to a short slide in the beta schedule is nothing - when compared to the chicken little statements we'd hear if the next Severn beta were before it's ready.
Thanks, Mike Jang
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:46:40 -0400, you wrote:
Folks, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerald Henriksen" ghenriks@rogers.com
One of the issues delaying beta 2 is the move to include Gnome 2.4, with the last of the Gnome 2.4 beta packages only just now finally be released into the severn update channel I believe.
Unlike what some have suggested, the quality of a released beta is not trivial.
There's an expectation that a later beta of a product will be in "better shape." Unfortunately, that's not fair, given the desire to incorporate packages such as the newest GNOME. So Red Hat has additional work to do.
It is also worth pointing out that many of the things that will make it into the next beta are currently available for download in the up2date channel that was created this week.
For those who have been downloading these updates the beta testing has continued, with new bugs being found and reported and fixed.
MJang wrote:
If Red Hat were to release a later beta that was in noticably worse shape, I'm sure we'd see a lot of critical media on the topic. As the market leader, Red Hat is held to a higher standard.
Any loss of face with respect to a short slide in the beta schedule is nothing - when compared to the chicken little statements we'd hear if the next Severn beta were before it's ready.
Beta ! - Ок .
official: oct 6 ???
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MJang wrote:
Folks, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerald Henriksen" ghenriks@rogers.com
One of the issues delaying beta 2 is the move to include Gnome 2.4,
There's an expectation that a later beta of a product will be in "better shape." Unfortunately, that's not fair, given the desire to incorporate packages such as the newest GNOME. So Red Hat has additional work to do.
If Red Hat were to release a later beta that was in noticably worse shape, I'm sure we'd see a lot of critical media on the topic. As the market leader, Red Hat is held to a higher standard.
I think that was the case for the 5.0 and 6.0 Beta chains.. THere were some bugs in a later beta and Red Hat got nothing but grief about how shoddy they were.
-
Alan Cox -
Bill Anderson -
Bill Nottingham -
Bill Rugolsky Jr. -
Daniel Veillard -
Elliot Lee -
Féliciano Matias -
Gerald Henriksen -
Hoyt -
Jeremy Portzer -
Joel -
Klaasjan Brand -
Kyle Maxwell -
Leonard den Ottolander -
Michael K. Johnson -
Michael Schwendt -
Mike A. Harris -
Mike Jang -
Noah Silva [Mailing list] -
Panu Matilainen -
Robert P. J. Day -
Sergey Mihailov -
seth vidal -
Stephen Smoogen -
William F. Acker WB2FLW +1 303 722 7209