FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Zhengpeng Hou
Hi All,
I'm sorry to bring this up at almost the last stage of Lucid
development cycle. Since Lucid will
be another LTS, so I think I'd better to raise this up. IBus 1.3 has
been released on 2010-03-21, just
one week ago, and most of those packages have been uploaded to Debian
experimental already[1], which
means that those in experimental have been built and installed successfully.
I have discussed with upstream on this as well, Peng Huang also
recommended to use ibus-1.3 series for
Lucid,  upstream will focus on 1.3 series mostly,  then if we still
use 1.2 series in a LTS release, we'll have
to backport any bug fix from 1.3 series.
The majority changes in IBus 1.3 series as below, diff of Changelog
attached for reference.
   1 use floating IBusObject
   2 support share one global engine in all applications
   3 some ui improvements
   4 bug fixes

So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
experimental. Since this new upstream release
will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
before filing FFe.

NB, Peng Huang might not be on this list, so if you can CC him, that
would be great.

Cheers
Zhengpeng


1. http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ibus&searchon=sourcenames&suite=experimental&section=all

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

ibus_changelosg.diff (49K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Benjamin Drung-3
Am Sonntag, den 28.03.2010, 17:07 +0800 schrieb Zhengpeng Hou:
> So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
> experimental. Since this new upstream release
> will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
> before filing FFe.

Which packages depends on ibus? Do they compile against ibus-1.3?

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

LI Daobing
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 20:07, Benjamin Drung <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 28.03.2010, 17:07 +0800 schrieb Zhengpeng Hou:
>> So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
>> experimental. Since this new upstream release
>> will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
>> before filing FFe.
>
> Which packages depends on ibus? Do they compile against ibus-1.3?
>
ibus-pinyin, ibus-m17n, ibus-chewing, ibus-anthy depends on the C API
of ibus (which changed from ibus 1.2 to ibus 1.3), and the python api
does not change from 1.2 to 1.3, so ibus-anthy, ibus-table and other
packages does not need a new version.

there is a ppa for ibus 1.3:
https://launchpad.net/~ibus-dev/+archive/ibus-1.3-lucid

ibus-anthy for 1.3 still not released yet, maybe we need package the
git version.


--
Best Regards
LI Daobing

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Peng Huang-2


On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 8:32 PM, LI Daobing <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 20:07, Benjamin Drung <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 28.03.2010, 17:07 +0800 schrieb Zhengpeng Hou:
>> So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
>> experimental. Since this new upstream release
>> will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
>> before filing FFe.
>
> Which packages depends on ibus? Do they compile against ibus-1.3?
>
ibus-pinyin, ibus-m17n, ibus-chewing, ibus-anthy depends on the C API
of ibus (which changed from ibus 1.2 to ibus 1.3), and the python api
does not change from 1.2 to 1.3, so ibus-anthy, ibus-table and other
packages does not need a new version. 

there is a ppa for ibus 1.3:
https://launchpad.net/~ibus-dev/+archive/ibus-1.3-lucid

ibus-anthy for 1.3 still not released yet, maybe we need package the
git version.

It should be ibus-hangul. Anthy does not have any problem.

Regards,
Peng Huang
 

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

LI Daobing
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 21:23, Peng Huang <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 8:32 PM, LI Daobing <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 20:07, Benjamin Drung <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Am Sonntag, den 28.03.2010, 17:07 +0800 schrieb Zhengpeng Hou:
>> >> So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
>> >> experimental. Since this new upstream release
>> >> will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
>> >> before filing FFe.
>> >
>> > Which packages depends on ibus? Do they compile against ibus-1.3?
>> >
>> ibus-pinyin, ibus-m17n, ibus-chewing, ibus-anthy depends on the C API
>> of ibus (which changed from ibus 1.2 to ibus 1.3), and the python api
>> does not change from 1.2 to 1.3, so ibus-anthy, ibus-table and other
>> packages does not need a new version.
>>
>> there is a ppa for ibus 1.3:
>> https://launchpad.net/~ibus-dev/+archive/ibus-1.3-lucid
>>
>> ibus-anthy for 1.3 still not released yet, maybe we need package the
>> git version.
>
> It should be ibus-hangul. Anthy does not have any problem.


yes, my typo.

ibus-hangul for 1.3 have not been released yet.


--
Best Regards
LI Daobing

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Steve Langasek-6
In reply to this post by Zhengpeng Hou
Hi Zhengpeng,

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:07:31PM +0800, Zhengpeng Hou wrote:

> Hi All,
> I'm sorry to bring this up at almost the last stage of Lucid
> development cycle. Since Lucid will
> be another LTS, so I think I'd better to raise this up. IBus 1.3 has
> been released on 2010-03-21, just
> one week ago, and most of those packages have been uploaded to Debian
> experimental already[1], which
> means that those in experimental have been built and installed successfully.
> I have discussed with upstream on this as well, Peng Huang also
> recommended to use ibus-1.3 series for
> Lucid,  upstream will focus on 1.3 series mostly,  then if we still
> use 1.2 series in a LTS release, we'll have
> to backport any bug fix from 1.3 series.
> The majority changes in IBus 1.3 series as below, diff of Changelog
> attached for reference.
>    1 use floating IBusObject
>    2 support share one global engine in all applications
>    3 some ui improvements
>    4 bug fixes

> So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
> experimental. Since this new upstream release
> will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
> before filing FFe.

> NB, Peng Huang might not be on this list, so if you can CC him, that
> would be great.

The first packaged release of ibus 1.2 was in June 2009; before that, the
1.1 series only lasted from April 2009 to June 2009.  Is there a reason to
expect that ibus 1.3 will be developed for a longer period of time than 1.1
or 1.2 was?  If not, the backport argument doesn't carry much weight with
me:  yes, it will be easier to backport bug fixes, but only for a short
time; and because 1.3 is so fresh, there is much more chance that we will
*need* to backport fixes!

Unless you can point to specific, high-severity problems with ibus 1.2 that
would be fixed by moving to 1.3, I would nack this.

Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
[hidden email]                                     [hidden email]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (845 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Peng Huang-2
Hi Steve Langasek,

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Steve Langasek <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Zhengpeng,

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:07:31PM +0800, Zhengpeng Hou wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm sorry to bring this up at almost the last stage of Lucid
> development cycle. Since Lucid will
> be another LTS, so I think I'd better to raise this up. IBus 1.3 has
> been released on 2010-03-21, just
> one week ago, and most of those packages have been uploaded to Debian
> experimental already[1], which
> means that those in experimental have been built and installed successfully.
> I have discussed with upstream on this as well, Peng Huang also
> recommended to use ibus-1.3 series for
> Lucid,  upstream will focus on 1.3 series mostly,  then if we still
> use 1.2 series in a LTS release, we'll have
> to backport any bug fix from 1.3 series.
> The majority changes in IBus 1.3 series as below, diff of Changelog
> attached for reference.
>    1 use floating IBusObject
>    2 support share one global engine in all applications
>    3 some ui improvements
>    4 bug fixes

> So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
> experimental. Since this new upstream release
> will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
> before filing FFe.

> NB, Peng Huang might not be on this list, so if you can CC him, that
> would be great.

The first packaged release of ibus 1.2 was in June 2009; before that, the
1.1 series only lasted from April 2009 to June 2009.  Is there a reason to
expect that ibus 1.3 will be developed for a longer period of time than 1.1
or 1.2 was?  If not, the backport argument doesn't carry much weight with
me:  yes, it will be easier to backport bug fixes, but only for a short
time; and because 1.3 is so fresh, there is much more chance that we will
*need* to backport fixes!

From 1.2 to 1.3, many low level C interfaces have been updated (using the floating IBusObject). It cause most of C source files been changed. I think back porting fixes in C code between 1.3 and 1.2 will be more hard. And 1.3 includes the new feature sharing the global engine. It is asked by  many users. So if ubuntu could uses 1.3, it will be better.

BTW, currently all IME development is focus on 1.3 too. So I think ubuntu will get more benefit, if it use the ibus-1.3. And it is good for upstream too. it could reduce issues reported for old ibus releases in upstream, and we could be more concentrative on 1.3 bug fixing and future version development. And for us IME developers, they does not need upgrade ibus to 1.3 in ubuntu any more.

Wish ubuntu will use the new release. Thanks.

Regards,
Peng Huang
 

Unless you can point to specific, high-severity problems with ibus 1.2 that
would be fixed by moving to 1.3, I would nack this.

Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
[hidden email]                                     [hidden email]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=4QDO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

AWASHIRO Ikuya
In reply to this post by LI Daobing
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:32:02 +0800
LI Daobing <[hidden email]> wrote:

> there is a ppa for ibus 1.3:
> https://launchpad.net/~ibus-dev/+archive/ibus-1.3-lucid
>
> ibus-anthy for 1.3 still not released yet, maybe we need package the
> git version.
ibus-anthy 1.2.0.20100115-1 works with ibus 1.2.99.20100202-1~ppa1.
(Anyway, we need to the newest ibus-anthy.)

BTW, I found a bug. This ibus should remove libibus1.

Thanks,
--
AWASHIRO Ikuya
[hidden email] / [hidden email]
GPG fingerprint:
1A19 AD66 C53F 2250 3537 1A9D 3A53 2C1D 20AB CC8A
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikunya/
http://twitter.com/ikunya/

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Zhengpeng Hou
In reply to this post by Peng Huang-2
Hi all,
I have to raise this up once again.  A memory leak has been found in lucid
Jonathan Riddell approached me yesterday, discussed a SRU, I'd prefer we can 
SRU the whole ibus and related IME, which can provide end users better UX, especially lucid is a LTS release.

Cheers
Zhengpeng

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Peng Huang <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Steve Langasek,

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Steve Langasek <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Zhengpeng,

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:07:31PM +0800, Zhengpeng Hou wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm sorry to bring this up at almost the last stage of Lucid
> development cycle. Since Lucid will
> be another LTS, so I think I'd better to raise this up. IBus 1.3 has
> been released on 2010-03-21, just
> one week ago, and most of those packages have been uploaded to Debian
> experimental already[1], which
> means that those in experimental have been built and installed successfully.
> I have discussed with upstream on this as well, Peng Huang also
> recommended to use ibus-1.3 series for
> Lucid,  upstream will focus on 1.3 series mostly,  then if we still
> use 1.2 series in a LTS release, we'll have
> to backport any bug fix from 1.3 series.
> The majority changes in IBus 1.3 series as below, diff of Changelog
> attached for reference.
>    1 use floating IBusObject
>    2 support share one global engine in all applications
>    3 some ui improvements
>    4 bug fixes

> So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
> experimental. Since this new upstream release
> will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
> before filing FFe.

> NB, Peng Huang might not be on this list, so if you can CC him, that
> would be great.

The first packaged release of ibus 1.2 was in June 2009; before that, the
1.1 series only lasted from April 2009 to June 2009.  Is there a reason to
expect that ibus 1.3 will be developed for a longer period of time than 1.1
or 1.2 was?  If not, the backport argument doesn't carry much weight with
me:  yes, it will be easier to backport bug fixes, but only for a short
time; and because 1.3 is so fresh, there is much more chance that we will
*need* to backport fixes!

From 1.2 to 1.3, many low level C interfaces have been updated (using the floating IBusObject). It cause most of C source files been changed. I think back porting fixes in C code between 1.3 and 1.2 will be more hard. And 1.3 includes the new feature sharing the global engine. It is asked by  many users. So if ubuntu could uses 1.3, it will be better.

BTW, currently all IME development is focus on 1.3 too. So I think ubuntu will get more benefit, if it use the ibus-1.3. And it is good for upstream too. it could reduce issues reported for old ibus releases in upstream, and we could be more concentrative on 1.3 bug fixing and future version development. And for us IME developers, they does not need upgrade ibus to 1.3 in ubuntu any more.

Wish ubuntu will use the new release. Thanks.

Regards,
Peng Huang
 

Unless you can point to specific, high-severity problems with ibus 1.2 that
would be fixed by moving to 1.3, I would nack this.

Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
[hidden email]                                     [hidden email]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=4QDO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Mark Shuttleworth-3
 Zengpeng

Would this have an impact on the size of the next point release? Is 1.3
substantially different to 1.2 in size on CD?

We strongly avoid version bumps in an SRU, the case would need to be
watertight - have you pushed 1.3 into -backports, for example, is there
substantial evidence of app compatibility?.

Mark

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Aron Xu-2
In reply to this post by Zhengpeng Hou

On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:25:36PM +0800, Zhengpeng Hou wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have to raise this up once again.  A memory leak has been found in
> lucid
> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ibus/+bug/583954
> Jonathan Riddell approached me yesterday, discussed a SRU, I'd prefer
> we can 
> SRU the whole ibus and related IME, which can provide end users better
> UX,
> especially lucid is a LTS release.
>
> Cheers
> Zhengpeng
>
I think this topic worth a discussion, serious memory leak is found in
an important CJK support part that included to LTS CD images but is hard
to get it fixed.

During the Lucid release cycle, we decided to not updating ibus and
friends finally in this thread in the reason of "stability", even though
upstream author and package maintainer of Debian both gave their
positive cents on support the upgrade from old 1.2 series to new 1.3
series. Now we probably need another difficult decision about SRU a new
release of them. AFAIK, ibus is not being maintained actively in Ubuntu
and developers have chosen a very cautious attitude on its update or
not.

ibus is an actively developed project and produce many bug fixes and new
features in a short time, and Ubuntu developers were felt it hard to get
up-to-date, so guesses about backporting bug fixes appears.
Unfortunately, ibus 1.3 has got major changes from 1.2 so that fixes are
not that easy to get backported. Here we should tell, wether we have
some Ubuntu developer find and fix the bug, or we just make 1.3 series
to be uploaded. 1.3 series is the currently upstream supported branch
and we've just solved the indicater intergation of ibus in LP: #564034
so there has no Critial bugs for Maverick, and two more High importance
bug, LP: #329898 and LP: #625696 are still open for a fix or work
around. Those two bugs should get fixed before Maverick released, either
by upstream release or providing fixes elsewhere, so they shouldn't get
in the way if we decide to make them in an SRU for Lucid release.

Updating ibus will pull in some other related packages (mostly ibus-*),
but it is not difficult to resolve since we've just did it in Maverick.


--
Regards,
Aron Xu


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Aron Xu-2
In reply to this post by Mark Shuttleworth-3
Hi Mark,

On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 08:06:01AM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>  Zengpeng
>
> Would this have an impact on the size of the next point release? Is 1.3
> substantially different to 1.2 in size on CD?
>

Actually this will save some hunderds of KB's space according to the
.deb files' size in http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/i/ibus/

> We strongly avoid version bumps in an SRU, the case would need to be
> watertight - have you pushed 1.3 into -backports, for example, is there
> substantial evidence of app compatibility?.
>
> Mark

In the real situation, many users have been using ibus-dev and
shawn-p-huang's PPA for a quite long time (maybe from the very begining
of the ibus-dev PPA's creation) because they ship the latest version of
ibus and is maintained by the package maintainer of Debian (LI Daobing
for ppa:ibus-dev) and upstream author (Shawn P. Huang for
ppa:shawn-p-huang). Their versions are better than the old ones in our
archive for many reasons although it is not a good choice from the
distribution maintenance point of view. So the compatibility of ibus 1.3
on Lucid has no doubt.


--
Regards,
Aron Xu

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Zhengpeng Hou
In reply to this post by Mark Shuttleworth-3
Hi Mark

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Zengpeng

Would this have an impact on the size of the next point release? Is 1.3
substantially different to 1.2 in size on CD?
If we just upgrade to 1.3 series, and use the seed in lucid, then it shouldn't be a problem. We're not expecting
the same approach in maverick, so my answer should be there won't have too much impact on point release. 

We strongly avoid version bumps in an SRU, the case would need to be
watertight - have you pushed 1.3 into -backports, for example, is there
substantial evidence of app compatibility?.
I agree that version bumps is not a good idea. The fact here is:
1 ibus 1.2 series in lucid have serious memory leak issue, which even upstream author recommended to use 1.3 for a LTS
2 ibus 1.3 do make itself more usable to end users. 
3 If we decide to SRU whole ibus stack, only those ibus related, which most are IME. will be affected.
 apt-cache rdepends ibus
ibus
Reverse Depends:
  ibus-pinyin
  xubuntu-desktop
  ubuntustudio-desktop
  ubuntu-sugar-remix
  ibus-tegaki
  ibus-skk
  ibus-mozc
  ibus-array
  ubuntu-netbook
  ubuntu-desktop
  libibus-dev
  libibus-dev
  ibus-unikey
  ibus-table
  ibus-pinyin
  ibus-m17n
  ibus-hangul
  ibus-chewing
  ibus-anthy
And those upgrade to IME, like ibus-pinyin/ibus-anthy will also bring more stablility and features to end users.

So, I think most end user would be appreciating such a SRU.
Cheers
Zhengpeng

Mark


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

LI Daobing
In reply to this post by Zhengpeng Hou
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 21:22, Krzysztof Klimonda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 19:52 +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
>> I think this topic worth a discussion, serious memory leak is found in
>> an important CJK support part that included to LTS CD images but is hard
>> to get it fixed.
>
> Is the memory leak really that serious? Bug report mentions "130MB over
> few days", I wouldn't call that serious - especially that there are at
> least two simple workarounds: Shut down your computer when you go to
> sleep/home or restart process.
>
> If we really don't have active maintainers for ibus stack in Ubuntu
> backporting whole stack to Lucid may be risky - we can introduce
> regressions that aren't as easily worked around as the memory leak
> itself.
> There are 12 different ibus dependant packages, would all of them have
> to be updated? Some are probably used only be a small number of people -
> will they get enough testing for regressions once the land in -proposed?
>
> And also is 1.3 going to be supported by upstream for a longer time or
> are we going to have the same problem if some bug is discovered in 1.3
> and upstream suggests updating to 1.4?
>
> Does #625696 affect 10.04? It's not mentioned in the report, #329898
> does look like something that would be nice to get fixed but again - is
> it important enough to risk regressions?
>

I think we should backport ibus 1.3 first, this should be acceptable
for all of us.

thanks.



--
Best Regards
LI Daobing

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Mark Shuttleworth-3
 On 02/09/10 14:26, LI Daobing wrote:
> I think we should backport ibus 1.3 first, this should be acceptable
> for all of us.

+1, kick the tires on it in -backports, which would give the proponents
a much stronger basis for making the case for an SRU.

Mark

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series

Aron Xu-2
In reply to this post by Aron Xu-2

On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Klimonda wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 19:52 +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> > I think this topic worth a discussion, serious memory leak is found
> > in
> > an important CJK support part that included to LTS CD images but is
> > hard
> > to get it fixed.
>
> Is the memory leak really that serious? Bug report mentions "130MB
> over
> few days", I wouldn't call that serious - especially that there are at
> least two simple workarounds: Shut down your computer when you go to
> sleep/home or restart process.
Memory leak is very noticable when a user is actually typing many
things - you could read there are someone saying that typing every word
is
making it leak more. Ubuntu requires only 384MB RAM for an installation,
butonly an input method will take around 300MB when there is memory
leak.
The description of that bug only indicates on of the two process that
could
probably has memory leak. The another one will use up another 100MB
memory when the leak appears.

The workaround doesn't fix the security risk caused by the memory leak.

>
> If we really don't have active maintainers for ibus stack in Ubuntu
> backporting whole stack to Lucid may be risky - we can introduce
> regressions that aren't as easily worked around as the memory leak
> itself.
> There are 12 different ibus dependant packages, would all of them have
> to be updated? Some are probably used only be a small number of people
> -
> will they get enough testing for regressions once the land in
> -proposed?
>
There isn't active maintainer in Ubuntu, but the software has an active
upstream, and there are a team who are maintaining the packages actively
in Debian. When there is nobody taking care of fixing bugs, it makes no
sense to say updating to a working branch which resolves many bugs are
facing risks. The good point for not updating to a newer version is
don't have the risk of regressions; the risk of not updating is old bugs
that already fixed upstream cannot be applied to our packages (firstly
changes are not easy to backport, secondly we are lacking for
maintainer).

Not all of the related packages need to be updated, the update from 1.2
to 1.3 only updates the C/C++ interface, and Python part is not changed,
so many packages don't actually need an update. Here is list of packages
that is the most important for QA: ibus, ibus-pinyin, ibus-chewing,
ibus-anthy and ibus-hangul.

> And also is 1.3 going to be supported by upstream for a longer time or
> are we going to have the same problem if some bug is discovered in 1.3
> and upstream suggests updating to 1.4?
>

The problem was, when upstream suggests updating to 1.3, we are still in
Lucid development cycle but decided to not update. And the problem is,
for now, whether an update to 1.3 is worthy, but not stuck at
discussions about whatif the same situation happen with Lucid support
cycle goes on. With the cycle goes by, more and more users will upgrade
to newer releases. Those who have chosen to stay with an LTS just want
to have a solid platform for their deployment, so whether this update
can
provide better stability is our key topic here.

> Does #625696 affect 10.04? It's not mentioned in the report, #329898
> does look like something that would be nice to get fixed but again -
> is
> it important enough to risk regressions?
>
> Cheers,
>  KK

The two bugs I listed are bugs we should give a fix before Maverick
release, they also should be fixed if we decide to have an SRU.


--
Regards,
Aron Xu


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment