[PureOS] Let's stablize PureoS Green

Wed Mar 20 04:47:29 PDT 2019

Quoting François Téchené (2019-03-20 12:09:38)
> 
> 
> On 19/03/2019 20:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, so "our users" is one target, not several.
> > 
> > Not "enterprise customers" needing particularly stable system and 
> > "existing users" expecting a constant flow of updates from Debian 
> > testing.
> > 
> > All users are in same boat, and the boat goes in the direction that 
> > the majority need to go.
> > 
> > Makes good sense.
> >
> Exactly, I think that in term of expectation, both enterprise and
> everyday customers will expect a system that is stable, easily usable
> and feature full.
> 
> Stability and usability are stronger in that expectation so we 
> shouldn't target users looking for cutting edge features that are 
> breaking stability and usability on the default experience.
> 
> So in term of priority regarding the customers experience, we have the
> following :
> 
>   1 - Stability
>   2 - Usability
>   3 - Features

Let me provoke you...

So until the feature and usability improvements are stable integrated 
with the system, we should provide our users a system _without_ those 
improvements?

I translate that to basing PureOS on Debian stable, not Debian testing, 
even if that means missing out on GNOME 3.32 and libhandy.

(except on the phone where Debian stable is "too stable" i.e. broken).

> The fact of improving GNOME is directly related to usability in the sens
> that we want to create a consistent (convergent) experience across the
> different Librem devices along with a tight integration with the Librem
> services.
> 
> 
> > What we can do now, with our current manpower and infrastructure, is 
> > follow Debian closely - which means a general feature update of our 
> > system not every 6-12 months, but either every day or every 2-4 
> > years.
> > 
> > We can develop different/smarter infrastructure and later when that 
> > is done we can choose a 3rd path similar to Ubuntu, of a 6-12 month 
> > release cycle meaning that we deviate further from Debian at times.  
> > Later, not now, with our current infrastructure.  If we want such 
> > 3rd path.
> > 
> > And/or we can hire more people to help maintain PureOS, and later 
> > when they are settled in and efficient with our infrastructure, we 
> > can deviate further from Debian even before we have 
> > different/smarter infrastructure in place, by pouring more man hours 
> > into the things now covered mostly by Debian - including security 
> > tracking and regression testing and bootstrapping new packages and 
> > translating and and and... If we want to deviate more from Debian.
> > 
> > For now we can choose between 2 Debian tracks: Stable or Testing.
> > 
> > 
> 
> What we need, in my opinion, is a stable core OS where we control the 
> release cycles of the projects we develop and contribute to (currently 
> GNOME)
> 
> It may not be doable with the current man power but I imagine the 
> following workflow :
> 
>   - PureOS "red" matching Debian Experimental (or Sid?) would let the 
> devs work on new GNOME features.
> 
>   - PureOS "orange" matching Debian Stable with an exception for the 
> GNOME packages being updated from PureOS "red" every official GNOME 
> releases (starting from RC releases), would let the design team and 
> other testers test the latest GNOME in the real (stable) world.
> 
>  - PureOS "green" being a snapshot of PureOS "orange" every time 
> PureOS "orange" is defined as stable would be the official PureOS 
> release for the people.
> 
> This is just a proposal that may not reflect the reality of technical 
> issues but it is mainly to illustrate the fact that we keep control of 
> the testing and stability of what we develop.

Makes good sense to _develop_ such separation between "core OS" and 
other parts.

It is not possible to make such distinction _today_ however: Even if our 
manpower is sufficient today, we can only _today_ choose between Debian 
options.  We have no other options to choose from _today_.

As an example, use of flatpak for other parts is an option _later_ when 
we have gained experience with how it can sustainably and reliably 
integrate with whatever subset of Debian we decide is "core".

> >> I think this is a critical time for us in term of user experience 
> >> so we must not rush in the decisions and make sure we find a good 
> >> compromise.
> > 
> > Reason it is kinda urgent to reflect on this now is that _if_ we 
> > decide to hit the break and slow down to tracking Debian stable, 
> > then we cannot take that decision at arbitrary points during the 
> > Debian development cycle: We need to decide before Debian releases 
> > the next stable release, likely within few months from now, or 
> > continue fast-paced tracking Debian testing until the next window 
> > 2-4 years from now.
> > 
> 
> OK, I understand Jonas. It is the right time to discuss that issue and 
> I am sure we will find a good solution for the short and longer term!

We can discuss both what to do now, and what to invest resources in 
developing for a potential (if research is fruitful!) near future.

We can discuss those related but different topics together IF we make it 
VERY clear at all time which part we are talking about when.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/attachments/20190320/0458037f/attachment.sig>