[PureOS] Let's stablize PureoS Green

Wed Mar 20 06:10:18 PDT 2019

To add my perspective:

I fully agree with Francois' vision. What we need long-term is

- a user-facing OS that is stable, but which receives timely updates to
UX-relevant parts of the stack (primarily GNOME and its dependencies,
but probably also popular browsers, and a few other apps and developer
tools). We don't want to split our OS in two for enterprise/consumer, as
it would have very problematic effects on the developer ecosystem and
the cohesion of the platform (e.g. apps designed for the fresher
consumer version might not work on the enterprise one).

- a way to do integration testing with in-development parts of the stack
(primarily GNOME and things we need for the phone). Ideally, this would
always have nightly versions of the entire GNOME platform throughout the
development cycle. Most likely we'd need to do this in close
collaboration with some GNOME people.

- great flatpak integration for third-party apps (to alleviate the need
to have the latest version of every random app packged) and the PureOS Store

What we need to do to get there is a different question :)

Regarding the current choice between Debian stable and testing: We can't
go with Debian stable, unless we find a way to get up-to-date versions
of GNOME and all its dependecies on top of that. I have a hunch that
this isn't easily possible, but it's hardly my area of expertise :)

Continuing with Debian testing seems like the more sustainable route
short-term, though we still need to figure out how to get up-to-date
GNOME during freeze periods, such as the current one. Since other
Debian-based distributions, such as Ubuntu are going to do this as well,
it seems at least theoretically doable.

Longer-term I'd be interested in exploring alternative options, such as
rebasing the OS on Endless OS, Ubuntu, or Fedora Silverblue, all of
which have different, potentially interesting solutions to this problem.
Sooner or later we'll want to go in a fully containerized direction a la
Silverblue, so this might be good to factor into the decision we take now.

Cheers,
Tobias

On 3/20/19 12:47 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pureos-project mailing list
> Pureos-project at lists.puri.sm
> https://lists.puri.sm/listinfo/pureos-project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/attachments/20190320/a186baed/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/attachments/20190320/a186baed/attachment-0001.sig>