x86_64 FC2 repo not up yet?

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Joe Harrington <jh at oobleck.astro.cornell.edu>:

> > So, it isn't that we are not supporting it, it is that until recently there
> > was no need to support it, and now that there is, we've not yet set up any
> > infrastructor for it, and we don't yet have enough people wanting it and
> > willing to support it.
> 
> Well, we're getting mixed up in semantics.  All I said was that you do

Well, we're also getting mixed up in lack of facts.  I don't use FC, so
I had no idea that FC1 had x86_64 support.  I assumed FC2 was the first
to have x86_64 support.  After you raised this issue, I went and checked
and found FC1 did also have x84_64 support.  So I've updated the web page
to mention the issue that we're not supporting x86_64.  I'll soon try to
rewrite the FAQ entry dealing with architectures also, to make it more
accurate, now that I know the facts.

> The reason I'm pointing out what might otherwise be a nitpick is that,
> regardless of the lack of a formal financial/contractual commitment to
> users, a lot of people look to this project to see whether they can
> use Fedora Core in real-world environments.  Many people ask me, is
> Fedora stable if you pick it up two releases behind and run all the
> way through Legacy?  You are looked to as an avenue to a stable
> Fedora, and strong statements that are backed by plans rather than
> reality can lead people to make bad decisions.

In this case, the web site was wrong, and it was wrong only because
I lacked sufficient information, and no one (until you) had either
pointed out the problem or even raised the issue recently.

I apologize for my ignorance of the issue, and hence the misinformation
on the web site which resulted from it.
 
> > And secondly, the implication you cite is just the
> > implication we want, though at times we may drop the ball and be
> > unprepared or get to things in a less than timely fashion.
> 
> Careful here, you're saying you want people to believe something that
> you admit may not always be true.

Yes, because the implication was our intent.  But in this case, we've
obviously dropped the ball, and we need to change the implication 
now because of that.  But I really believed what we implied was true,
or I wouldn't have allowed it.  Now that I know it isn't true, I will
change it.

> I'm not sure where that sits in
> your moral framework.  It doesn't sit, in mine.

Moral framework unfortunately doesn't take into account ignorance of
a situation.  I wasn't being immoral, I just didn't know any better.

> People decide whether to depend on
> Fedora based on your statements and those on the Fedora site.  To be
> credible in the long term, you need to make up for your lack of formal
> liability by being brutally honest and transparent at all times.

I did not believe there was a problem, and no one had brought any 
problems to my attention, so I put on the web site what I did in
good faith, and I said what I said on the mailing list in good faith.

However, I now see that it was all wrong, and I was completely unaware
of the reality.  All I can do now is apologize and try to fix what is
incorrect in the web site asap.

> You misunderstand me here.  I'm talking about someone who has a new
> box and is deciding what to put on it.  This person presumably starts
> with a current version of FC, and checks Legacy to see whether they
> will in the future have support, even after Fedora EOLs it.  For me
> that was last July, and of course there was nothing about the current
> transition.  I was looking for statements relevant to whether x86_64
> would be supported.  I don't recall whether the x86_64 item was on the
> FAQ then, but I do recall coming away satisfied that your commitment
> to all the releases was high enough that I'd see a relatively seamless
> transition.  That is the impression you gave, quite effectively.

Yes, it was, and we meant to give that impression.  Somewhere along the
line the FLP as a whole dropped the ball, and the web site was no
longer accurate.  But unfortunately, I did not know we'd dropped the
ball, no one made me aware the project dropped the ball, and so the
web site was never changed (since I'm the only one maintaining it).

All I can do at this point is apologize, change the web site now
(after the fact), and try to get the FLP to act one way or the other
on the issue now that I am aware of the situation.  Trust me that I
will do those things now.

> Someone doing that today, who might start with FC3 or wait for FC4,
> would have little to indicate that taking their release into Legacy
> would be anything other than a change of repo in yum.conf.  It would
> be more honest and transparent if you wrote (and kept up after the
> current transition was complete) that the most recent conversion to
> Legacy took a month (or whatever it ends up being), in which time
> users of those systems had an open security vulnerability, and that
> you hope, but do not guarrantee, that the next transition will be
> quicker (and sure, give a plug for more volunteers).

I'll try to at least work something short to that effect into the FAQ,
but I'm not sure I want that kind of info on the main page.  But I do
see your point and understand your point of view.

> I'm not trying to rain on your parade here, though I think my words
> will have that effect.  I'm pointing out that there is a big gap
> between the overall impression given about Legacy support and the
> reality.

And I appreciate your pointing it out, so that it does not continue.
Unfortunately, I don't know everything about every part of the project.
And communication within the project hasn't been great.  Since no one
else has taken an active role in the web site, it reflects my understanding
of the project, right or wrong.

> I'm also not laying blame or even saying that you have not
> done the best you can with the resources you have.  I'm saying that

No, we have not done the best we could; we had yet another communication
failure within the project.

> the users can only care about the end result, and you serve them,
> Fedora, and yourselves best if you are quite clear and open about what
> you can in practice actually provide.  It's not the place for
> marketing-like glossovers of weaknesses.  It is better to make an
> honest impression than a good one.

We strive to do this, really.  We're not trying to lie, or exagerate.
Any mistakes on the web site are honest mistakes.

> --jh--

-- 
Eric Rostetter