Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 3 days, 3 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 3 days, 4 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 3 days, 19 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 4 days, 17 hrs ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 5 days, 23 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2014-10-04
, 09:23
|
|
Posts: 7,075 |
Thanked: 9,073 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
|
#252
|
Originally Posted by coderus
Ok. So jolla just lost against snow.
in my city snow started falling today(it's Chelyabinsk)
Next up: Jolla update vs Santa
__________________
Do something for the climate today! Anything!
I don't trust poeple without a Nokia n900...
Do something for the climate today! Anything!
I don't trust poeple without a Nokia n900...
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dave999 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2014-10-04
, 12:34
|
|
Posts: 1,055 |
Thanked: 4,107 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Norway
|
#253
|
Originally Posted by LouisDK
The same stabilization problem will occur for *any* upgrade like that. There's a lot of code (millions of it), thousands of commits between each minor release, with new features/reworks/etc. Breakage is inevitable.
Thanks for the information. However I don't understand why they put so much effort into updating to Qt 5.2, instead of stabilizing their current software stack based upon Qt 5.0.
BB10 still uses Qt 4.8 which works out quite well for them. Also Qt 5.2 isn't the latest and greatest as latest Qt stable is 5.3 and Jolla could always switch to a newer Qt release at a later point.
Granted, I expect the hop from 5.2 to future releases to be a bit calmer (no new js engine in QtQuick), but if we hadn't put the work into testing & stabilising now, we would have at some point in the future.
As for "why are you upgrading at all instead of stabilizing?" - minor version upgrades aren't just for all new and shiny things. Attention from upstream (& everyone else) doesn't stay on old releases indefinitely. 5.0 (and 5.1, which we are on now) has missed so many security fixes at this point it's ridiculous. We backported some, but I'm positive we missed plenty of others. Here's an example of how contributions to each branch changes over time:
4.8 is in a slightly better position here in that it's the last release of the 4.x line - it's not going to get any API changes etc, it's purely fix only. Plus the rate of change is significantly lower. So it's easier (and safer) to upgrade from 4.8.x to 4.8.x+1.
For some graphical examples of what I'm talking about:
https://www.openhub.net/p/qt5 - size and contribution rate to Qt 5.x
https://www.openhub.net/p/qt - size and contribution rate to Qt 4.x
[edit: also, Morpog's comment was pretty good]
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
|
|
2014-10-04
, 13:19
|
|
Posts: 252 |
Thanked: 597 times |
Joined on Oct 2011
@ Denmark
|
#254
|
Originally Posted by w00t
Tanks for the information. But will 5.2.x still get the same level of attention now that's 5.3 is out and 5.4 is in the pipe line?
The same stabilization problem will occur for *any* upgrade like that. There's a lot of code (millions of it), thousands of commits between each minor release, with new features/reworks/etc. Breakage is inevitable.
Granted, I expect the hop from 5.2 to future releases to be a bit calmer (no new js engine in QtQuick), but if we hadn't put the work into testing & stabilising now, we would have at some point in the future.
As for "why are you upgrading at all instead of stabilizing?" - minor version upgrades aren't just for all new and shiny things. Attention from upstream (& everyone else) doesn't stay on old releases indefinitely. 5.0 (and 5.1, which we are on now) has missed so many security fixes at this point it's ridiculous. We backported some, but I'm positive we missed plenty of others. Here's an example of how contributions to each branch changes over time:
http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-s...h.absolute.png
4.8 is in a slightly better position here in that it's the last release of the 4.x line - it's not going to get any API changes etc, it's purely fix only. Plus the rate of change is significantly lower. So it's easier (and safer) to upgrade from 4.8.x to 4.8.x+1.
For some graphical examples of what I'm talking about:
https://www.openhub.net/p/qt5 - size and contribution rate to Qt 5.x
https://www.openhub.net/p/qt - size and contribution rate to Qt 4.x
[edit: also, Morpog's comment was pretty good]
I guess that Jolla would have to switch Qt version a couple of times a year to catch up with development, but as you point out future migrations should be a bit calmer. Because you expect Qt 5.x development to be more seamless?
Also I don't understand why the Sailfish SDK is still in Alpha, and get updated as long after a SailfishOS release. It should be updated prior to prepare developers for changes.
I do know that you're not a developer at Jolla anymore, just curious.
Last edited by LouisDK; 2014-10-04 at 13:27.
|
|
2014-10-04
, 16:01
|
|
Posts: 1,055 |
Thanked: 4,107 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Norway
|
#255
|
Originally Posted by LouisDK
Nope. But the release picked next will have gotten a significant amount of attention since (a great deal of it from us: we had a lot of fixes to 5.2 that went into the 5.3 and 5.4 branches).
Tanks for the information. But will 5.2.x still get the same level of attention now that's 5.3 is out and 5.4 is in the pipe line?
It's a never ending game of catchup, basically. I don't expect a consumer product to ever be capable of running on purely an upstream release, although that would sure be a lovely goal to aim for.
(Right now, speaking about Qt in particular, I think they don't make enough patch releases, and when changes are made, they aren't always tested as rigorously as they should be.)
Originally Posted by LouisDK
There's a new minor release every 6 months, and patch releases every month or two (though this is not as often as it should be IMO)
I guess that Jolla would have to switch Qt version a couple of times a year to catch up with development, but as you point out future migrations should be a bit calmer. Because you expect Qt 5.x development to be more seamless?
Basically, I'd like to see more patch releases, especially for one particular minor release supported as "LTS" for maybe one year minimum instead of 6 months.
Originally Posted by LouisDK
AFAIU (though this is not really my area of expertise): Once multiple version support is in store, this might be a bit more possible. Right now, if it was released, you wouldn't be able to distribute applications for the current release (due to the 5.2 requirement).
Also I don't understand why the Sailfish SDK is still in Alpha, and get updated as long after a SailfishOS release. It should be updated prior to prepare developers for changes.
No denying, it would be nice.
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
|
|
2014-10-04
, 17:13
|
|
Posts: 1,548 |
Thanked: 7,510 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ Czech Republic
|
#256
|
Originally Posted by coderus
Everything is fine as long as it is just snow.
in my city snow started falling today
__________________
modRana: a flexible GPS navigation system
Mieru: a flexible manga and comic book reader
Universal Components - a solution for native looking yet component set independent QML appliactions (QtQuick Controls 2 & Silica supported as backends)
modRana: a flexible GPS navigation system
Mieru: a flexible manga and comic book reader
Universal Components - a solution for native looking yet component set independent QML appliactions (QtQuick Controls 2 & Silica supported as backends)
 |
|
2014-10-04
, 18:37
|
|
Posts: 423 |
Thanked: 478 times |
Joined on Sep 2014
@ Netherlands
|
#257
|
Everything is a game of catch-up really. In order to use feature x, you're gonna need to upgrade package y. In order to run Android app x, you're gonna need to upgrade the emulator to version 4.x In order to... well, do I need to explain any further? :P
Also: every 6 months for a Qt release is not too bad to manage. Any company using the same method as Jolla (using a .x release) always makes sure they have a branch for the upcoming version. So while Jolla is stabilizing the system update that contains 5.2, they already have (or will soon have) an internal branch with 5.3 support which they are testing from time to time. By the time 5.3 hits final, they can just use what they already have tested thus far and work out the last regressions. Just as what they are doing now with 5.2 And so on, and so on, and so on...
Also: every 6 months for a Qt release is not too bad to manage. Any company using the same method as Jolla (using a .x release) always makes sure they have a branch for the upcoming version. So while Jolla is stabilizing the system update that contains 5.2, they already have (or will soon have) an internal branch with 5.3 support which they are testing from time to time. By the time 5.3 hits final, they can just use what they already have tested thus far and work out the last regressions. Just as what they are doing now with 5.2
And so on, and so on, and so on...
|
|
2014-10-04
, 19:46
|
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 1,832 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
|
#258
|
Originally Posted by pichlo
i think system corruptions would be the most of it, but I mean it could be part of a PC backup that it would copy the binaries as well, just incase. It's not a perfect solution, but better than nothing
Wouldn't that somehow limit the usefullness of said flasher for fixing things like uninstalling the wrong thing or file system corruptions?
 |
|
2014-10-04
, 19:51
|
|
Posts: 6,436 |
Thanked: 12,701 times |
Joined on Nov 2011
@ Ängelholm, Sweden
|
#259
|
it was said tons of times: while firmware contains proprietary blobs of some manufactures who not permit to distribute it flasher wont appear.
Telegram | Openrepos | GitHub | Revolut donations