I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

phrakture · 2007-04-04 14:53:10

neotuli wrote:

I think the arch install CDs should be green from now on.

I think it should be magenta. Lets discuss.

STiAT · 2007-04-04 15:01:50

So well, my point of view:
I think slowing the main arch mirror (at least for users) is a great thing. Really great thing, since i don't see any reason why anyone should update form the archlinux.org mirror.

Releasing more often seems fine... just what's a new release? Is the release from 2.6.20.3 to 2.6.20.4 a new release? Basically it is... as for kernel.org says so. That would be massively updates on iso releases, and that indeed are just fixes and improvements.

I agree with the timeline for each major release. So, 2.6.20 to 2.6.21 might be worth a release - is it? To answer the question for myself:
A kernel update definitely does not mean it will break anything and / or change anything. I think the current system was quite fine - releasing when something major will change in the distribution (as if the installer changes). If you now think the current release system is this way - no, it definitely is not like this. It goes this direction, but it took a hell long time from the sda change of 0.7.2 to 0.8 being released. This put quite a lot of (new) users into struggles, who were not aware of this.

I think the current system is quite fine. But releases should be done if some significant things change, which will break the system after a pacman -Syu.

Well, you users think it will produce more traffic providing iso images often? Why should it?
The ISO image is needed if someone installs a new system. What happens if the user installs the system and updates? Huh? Yes, right, a package db update is downloaded and there you see.. nearly all packages changed. The user of course updates the packages, and the traffic still is the same, except that you can't be sure the user is loading using torrent / a mirror, since does every new user change the mirror after installing arch by default? He won't, i can assure.

Older arch users kow about the rolling releases and no - i will definitely NOT download each new iso image as i did before (yes, i downloaded every new iso, not just once, for raid setup the full, the base setup and so on).

The only problem i see actually is torrent. I don't think there will be as many users providing the torrent files than before. I don't know if some dedicated torrent mirroring is done by the arch mirrors, but if not, this definitely can be a contra.

I personally would stick with the current releases, by releasing when something significant changes, what will surely break arch, as the 0.7.2-0.8 update.

@phreak: i agree on magenta.

Kind regards,
STi

Last edited by STiAT (2007-04-04 15:02:16)

cactus · 2007-04-04 15:08:21

phrakture wrote:

neotuli wrote:
I think the arch install CDs should be green from now on.
I think it should be magenta. Lets discuss.

You evil bastard! What do you have against green?
*points at his avatar*

Green with red capes, makes things faster. Clearly.
Why are you trying to make arch slower by suggesting magenta??

STiAT · 2007-04-04 15:20:53

cschep wrote:

Something that I think would be cool is to have the installer run the script for sorting the mirrors for speed. /usr/bin/sortmirrors I believe.

It would be enough already to set the mirrors by location.
Provide the list of countries to the users, provide the mirrors to the countries, and the user can choose one.

If an european mirror was chosen all european up in the list, on top by the selected country, top the selected mirror.

This would make quite more sense than running sortmirrors, since i rarely ever had a network connection during install, since the modules are unsupported during the installation.

Kind regards,
STi

Romashka · 2007-04-04 15:55:38

STiAT wrote:

Releasing more often seems fine... just what's a new release? Is the release from 2.6.20.3 to 2.6.20.4 a new release? Basically it is... as for kernel.org says so. That would be massively updates on iso releases, and that indeed are just fixes and improvements.
I agree with the timeline for each major release. So, 2.6.20 to 2.6.21 might be worth a release - is it?

There won't be new ISO after minor kernel version (e.g. 2.6.21.4)
The point of kerne-based releases is to make sure users get the latest hardware support during installation.

STiAT wrote:

I personally would stick with the current releases, by releasing when something significant changes, what will surely break arch, as the 0.7.2-0.8 update.

Becase now releases will be often - it will allow us to make such transitions easier, e.g. instead 10 major changes to the system users will get 1, so there won't be such issues as some users had when trying to install from 0.7.2 CD after 5-8 months since release.

iphitus · 2007-04-04 21:54:16

cactus wrote:

phrakture wrote:
neotuli wrote:
I think the arch install CDs should be green from now on.
I think it should be magenta. Lets discuss.
You evil bastard! What do you have against green?
*points at his avatar*
Green with red capes, makes things faster. Clearly.
Why are you trying to make arch slower by suggesting magenta??

Please, everyone knows red distros go faster.

dtw: implement it and I'll make sure it's included for the next release.

edit: oh look, 3000 posts.

Last edited by iphitus (2007-04-04 21:54:44)

Manifold · 2007-04-05 09:17:54

As for some people's system updates never dipping below 1500kb/s, some people's never peak above 250kb/s.

I think 250kb/s is blazingly fast already. It's a lot to do with perspective. Should the upload speed of a linux distribution FTP update server really determine how you feel about the distribution? Even the FTP server you're leeching from has an upload bandwidth, don't forget it's free..

Why not go and make some hot beverages while the update is happening, or go and talk to some family/friends. I doubt most people need their updates to max out their download bandwidth.

[/rant]

Last edited by Manifold (2007-04-05 09:23:39)

dtw · 2007-04-05 09:31:37

iphitus wrote:

dtw: implement it and I'll make sure it's included for the next release.

I'll get on it then, mate.

iphitus · 2007-04-05 09:39:28

dtw wrote:

iphitus wrote:
dtw: implement it and I'll make sure it's included for the next release.
I'll get on it then, mate.

Check that rankmirrors isnt going to be run on the install CD... then this might be a moot point.

Otherwise it'd be as simple of making a list of countries which have mirrors, and just letting the user pick what country they live in (like every other distro really) for US, have east and west.

James

paulr · 2007-04-07 08:45:53

How did 0.7.2 to 0.8 break Arch ? The only thing that broke - that I could see - was the name of the image changed in the menu.lst file (for Grub ?) ; I guessed this one when the Kernel wouldn't boot

rnanaimo · 2007-04-11 00:25:09

Have any of the Arch developers seen the comment about the new release schedule for Arch on Planet Beranger?

Arch will never have a 1.0 release ... nor will they ever finish their lollypop

I don't think he understands your vision?

Borosai · 2007-04-11 00:36:46

rnanaimo wrote:

Have any of the Arch developers seen the comment about the new release schedule for Arch on Planet Beranger?
Arch will never have a 1.0 release ... nor will they ever finish their lollypop
I don't think he understands your vision?

Eternally unstable?

He clearly doesn't get it.

crouse · 2007-04-11 02:58:22

Borosai wrote:

rnanaimo wrote:
Have any of the Arch developers seen the comment about the new release schedule for Arch on Planet Beranger?
Arch will never have a 1.0 release ... nor will they ever finish their lollypop
I don't think he understands your vision?
Eternally unstable?
He clearly doesn't get it.

Yeah, I read some of his other stuff as well. Definitely not an optimist is he

I'd venture to say might be 1/2 a bubble off plumb as well.....

Obviously doesn't have a clue about ArchLinux.

Posted a comment: Arch User

Last edited by crouse (2007-04-11 15:04:24)

phrakture · 2007-04-11 06:50:16

I added my 2 cents to his silly rant. I really hate the whole "1.0 == stable" mindset. Take a look at the "iputils" version real quick. The tell me how unstable "ping" is.

lucke · 2007-04-11 07:30:58

phrakture wrote:

The tell me how unstable "ping" is.

Sometimes it can't reach a host :-(

Last edited by lucke (2007-04-11 07:32:20)

iphitus · 2007-04-11 08:28:21

lucke wrote:

phrakture wrote:
The tell me how unstable "ping" is.
Sometimes it can't reach a host :-(

hahaha! awesome!

As for Planet Beranger.... It's just some random blog.... i wouldnt take any notice of it. Some people like to cause controversy.

James

dtw · 2007-04-11 10:59:19

I've actually taken his advice to heart and switched back to linux 2.0, as I can't see how 2.6.20 can be stable...oh, wait, 2.6 is a stable branch...ok, so they just decide what numbers mean stable and what don't? So does that mean the numbers are kinda arbitrary?

Oh, wait, I'm having another thought....

anakin · 2007-04-11 11:05:39

Concerning the main topic, I wouldn't have found a better release scheme than the newly proposed one. It seems quite logical and perfectly suitable for new users which will now get a fairly updated kernel right from the start, thus decreasing the probability of unsupported hardware/features on the install ISO. The "pacman -Syu" process obviously will also be smoother.

The established Archlinux users hopefully won't lose to much time discussing it as they've all gone through the bolts and nuts of their beloved distro and totally understand the rolling release way.

Last edited by anakin (2007-04-11 11:10:50)

Romashka · 2007-04-11 12:16:34

anakin wrote:

Concerning the main topic, I wouldn't have found a better release scheme than the newly proposed one. It seems quite logical and perfectly suitable for new users which will now get a fairly updated kernel right from the start, thus decreasing the probability of unsupported hardware/features on the install ISO. The "pacman -Syu" process obviously will also be smoother.

And yet another important thing - I hope more users will understand what the hell Rolling Release System means finally. And there won't be "I'm running Arch Linux 0.7.2" anymore.

hussam · 2007-04-11 12:42:23

I would suggest a 0.8.kernelversion for example 0.8.2.6.xx for kernel 2.6.xx type of releases. Only make it 0.9.xxx when there's a major kernel upgrade for example to kernel 2.8.0 ( 0.9.2.8.xx ).

Romashka · 2007-04-11 12:45:53

hussam wrote:

I would suggest a 0.8.kernelversion for example 0.8.2.6.xx for kernel 2.6.xx type of releases. Only make it 0.9.xxx when there's a major kernel upgrade for example to kernel 2.8.0 ( 0.9.2.8.xx ).

Nah, 0.8.2.6.22.4 is too long Besides 0.8 actually means nothing except number.

hussam · 2007-04-11 12:54:27

Romashka, you are correct. Its was only a suggestion. In any case, syncing installer releases with kernel releases is a great idea. It's good not just because new users may need the new kernels for new hardware but it will give new users the chance to test any improvments that might be incorporated in the installer.

Last edited by hussam (2007-04-11 12:57:43)

anakin · 2007-04-11 14:50:57

Romashka wrote:

And yet another important thing - I hope more users will understand what the hell Rolling Release System means finally. And there won't be "I'm running Arch Linux 0.7.2" anymore.

Hopefully so, though they might start saying "I'm running Arch Linux 200704".

The radical solution on this matter of rolling release mind setting would probably be a versionless or dateless release name like "Archlinux" which would still be updated at each kernel minor revision but without any version/date reference.

Romashka · 2007-04-11 15:29:02

anakin wrote:

Romashka wrote:
And yet another important thing - I hope more users will understand what the hell Rolling Release System means finally. And there won't be "I'm running Arch Linux 0.7.2" anymore.
Hopefully so, though they might start saying "I'm running Arch Linux 200704".
The radical solution on this matter of rolling release mind setting would probably be a versionless or dateless release name like "Archlinux" which would still be updated at each kernel minor revision but without any version/date reference.

200704 is just installation ISO with snapshot of core packages.
We'll remove version from /etc/issue, leaving only kernel version.
So thay won't say anything except "I'm running Arch Linux, kernel 2.6.21"

anakin · 2007-04-11 15:47:16

Romashka wrote:

We'll remove version from /etc/issue, leaving only kernel version.
So thay won't say anything except "I'm running Arch Linux, kernel 2.6.21"

Didn't know /etc/issue would only include the kernel version, that's great. I suppose /etc/arch-release will follow the same path or otherwise be removed.

Anyway I think the 200XXX tag despite showing only on the ISO name will still lead the most inexperienced/release oriented users to think it's a static release.

"arch.iso" was my suggestion, but the real good one would be: "arch_is_a_rolling_release_distro.iso"

Arch Linux

#51 2007-04-04 14:53:10

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#52 2007-04-04 15:01:50

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#53 2007-04-04 15:08:21

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#54 2007-04-04 15:20:53

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#55 2007-04-04 15:55:38

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#56 2007-04-04 21:54:16

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#57 2007-04-05 09:17:54

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#58 2007-04-05 09:31:37

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#59 2007-04-05 09:39:28

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#60 2007-04-07 08:45:53

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#61 2007-04-11 00:25:09

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#62 2007-04-11 00:36:46

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#63 2007-04-11 02:58:22

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#64 2007-04-11 06:50:16

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#65 2007-04-11 07:30:58

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#66 2007-04-11 08:28:21

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#67 2007-04-11 10:59:19

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#68 2007-04-11 11:05:39

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#69 2007-04-11 12:16:34

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#70 2007-04-11 12:42:23

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#71 2007-04-11 12:45:53

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#72 2007-04-11 12:54:27

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#73 2007-04-11 14:50:57

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#74 2007-04-11 15:29:02

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#75 2007-04-11 15:47:16

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

Board footer