At today's blocker meeting, Stephen suggested that this rule is somewhat out of
place in our applications and launchers policy, which is a fair point. We
decided to go with his suggestion instead, which is to not modify any policy
and simply declare it a blocker.
I forgot to include the exact text that I'm planning to add. It would be:
"App launchers installed by default MUST be approved by the Workstation WG."
See also: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/15
Michael
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.f
Hi,
Currently we have the following as a final blocker criterion:
"All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with
each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy."
That policy is:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Guidelines/Appli
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 13:09 -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
> I have an updated F-21 alpha that is working well. Is it any
> different
> than F-21 beta and eventually the final release?
I can think of two differences:
* Alpha and beta users have updates-testing enabled, so you wi
On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 08:26 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> AIUI that's by design. Partitioned space is not 'free' by anaconda's
> definition, and anaconda will not just assume you don't care about the
> partition and reallocate it. 'Free space' only refers to *unallocated*
> space.
Well in genera
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 09:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> That sounds workable, so long as someone's actually making sure we
> *do*
> comply with those. Has anyone checked that yet? I'd rather not throw
> it
> in the criteria and then have to fudge it immediately :)
Salutations,
A bit late I kn
The blocker bugs app [1] seems to have hardcoded links to outdated
release criteria. Not sure where to file a bug
[1] https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 10:51 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> So, how to get more info about this updates?
pkcon get-transactions
(Look at the very bottom of the output.)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubs
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 17:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I have now updated this in the Fedora 21 Final Release Criteria:
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria&diff=390099&oldid=374841
I think the proposed OS X criterion is also uncontroversial:
"The in
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 09:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> That sounds workable, so long as someone's actually making sure we
> *do*
> comply with those. Has anyone checked that yet? I'd rather not throw
> it
> in the criteria and then have to fudge it immediately :)
I don't think all apps are cu
"All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply
with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers
policy." [1] (This is already mentioned at the very bottom of the
policy.)
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 17:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We don't really ha
On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 19:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> * Anything else?
The dual boot release criteria? Would be nice to get those finalized as
soon as possible.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscr
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 11:57 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> F20 have NetworkManager-0.9.9.0-44.git20131003.fc20 and F21 have
> NetworkManager-0.9.10.0-6.git20140704.fc21
Why are we still shipping git snapshots for such a critical system
component? If these versions are good enough for other distros,
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 16:17 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> What's really strange is that there's now Ctrl-Click to make the
> opposite
> choice of what "Open Terminal" is set to do by default. In particular,
> if
> you have the default choice of opening in a new window, and hold down
> the
> Ctrl k
Chris,
Your revisions seem fine to me.
Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 01:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > For the Linux criterion, how about this:
> >
> > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside
> > existing GNU/Linux installations supported by the upstream software for
> > detecting previously-installed operating s
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 12:56 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I'm just going to drop a mail to the desktop list to get their
> attention
> on these bugs. At the moment, switching to gnome-documents rather than
> the traditional folder based organisation method is a disappointing
> experience. :/
GNOME D
On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 21:46 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I think the language you have is functional, it just needs a delimiter
> establishing our purview. Although, I'd suggest the size of the
> distribution doesn't matter, if we nerf someone's system because of
> something we're not doing correct
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 19:30 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> rawhide.
The desktop file is correct; it launches gnome-screenshot --interactive.
So the program itself is indeed broken.
I notice it works when running from a terminal. Odd.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mes
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 22:16 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> Yeah but the desktop file should run it in interactive mode (can't
> check right now if it indeed does that).
Yup. Robert, are you running Fedora 20, Fedora 21, or rawhide?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 15:46 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Seems we (at Fedora) need to take action then and modify the .desktop
> files appropriately and request the modification to be applied
> upstream,
> too. Not all upstreams use the GNOME Shell, and not all upstreams
> would
> learn about t
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 22:00 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Is this criteria intended for final (as opposed to alpha or beta)?
I think it'd be most appropriate as a beta or final criterion. I'm not
sure which of those would be best.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message p
Hi all,
There's been some discussion on the desktop list, beginning at [1],
about Workstation's requirements for dual booting in F21. The
Workstation technical specification says the following:
"One aspect of storage configuration that will be needed is support for
dual-boot setups (preserving pr
23 matches
Mail list logo
