On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 14:43 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
>> Also for KDE theming, final wallpapers packages has to
>> exist
>> before (it's not that important these days, as we do not change
>> design too much
>> and it's more like sed-v
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:23:10PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:03:34AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use as
>> > a reminder system. It does
On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 14:43 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Also for KDE theming, final wallpapers packages has to
> exist
> before (it's not that important these days, as we do not change
> design too much
> and it's more like sed-version of Fn package but still causes
> delays).
It seems rath
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:23:10PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:03:34AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use as
> > a reminder system. It doesn't work very well for that. The expectation
> [...]
> > * QA
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:03:31PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > Here's a thought: maybe the Fedora background logo GNOME Shell plugin
> > > could detect if running on an Alpha/Beta release (or on Rawhide) and
> > > change appropria
On 08/07/2015 10:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:03:34 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
This is exactly what I *don't* want to happen, and what rather annoys
me about this whole business.
The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use
as a reminder system.
On 08/08/15 03:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
[...]
I don't even think the desktop background is all that visible anymore,
especially on some desktops (like workstation/gnome). People there
tend to use full screen apps and never even see the wallpaper. That
also seems like a pretty poor way to tell wha
On 08/08/15 05:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
actual case where people downloaded an Alpha or Beta th
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:59:51AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Here's a thought: maybe the Fedora background logo GNOME Shell plugin
> > could detect if running on an Alpha/Beta release (or on Rawhide) and
> > change appropriately?
> That's certainly what I thought would help with the whole b
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 13:42 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
> > cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
> > actual case where people dow
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:03:31PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Here's a thought: maybe the Fedora background logo GNOME Shell plugin
> > could detect if running on an Alpha/Beta release (or on Rawhide) and
> > change appropriately?
> Which is fine and dandy on a GNOME/Workstation system, bu
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:03:34 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> This is exactly what I *don't* want to happen, and what rather annoys
>> me about this whole business.
>>
>> The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 13:42 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
> > cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
> > actual case where people dow
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
> cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
> actual case where people downloaded an Alpha or Beta then got confused
> because the backgrou
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:03:34AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use as
> a reminder system. It doesn't work very well for that. The expectation
[...]
> * QA tests Thing and finds no-one ever even started working on it
> * QA files
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:15 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> > "Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
> > question.
> >
> > Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
> > desirable but not a
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:03:34 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> This is exactly what I *don't* want to happen, and what rather annoys
> me about this whole business.
>
> The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use
> as a reminder system. It doesn't work very well for that. T
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 11:57 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> I think it would make sense for the Design team to be aware of this
> proposal too. I think the criterion has been used as a forcing
> function in the past, so if it's not going to trigger a notification
> they expect, we don't want desi
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:15 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> "Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
> question.
>
> Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
> desirable but not a blocking issue.
>
> If lovely new art is not available, some generic
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 09:06:26AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I don't even think the desktop background is all that visible anymore,
> especially on some desktops (like workstation/gnome). People there tend
> to use full screen apps and never even see the wallpaper.
FWIW, I use GNOME without full
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 08:30:44AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> It's very likely to get into "last blocker" discussions (as it did
> yesterday). (By "last blocker" I mean those cases where the Go/No-Go
> would tend to waive it as a blocker if it was the only one holding up a
> release). To me,
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:15 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> "Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
> question.
>
> Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
> desirable but not a blocking issue.
>
That's fair. I was trying to offer an alternative
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 09:06:26AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:30:44 -0400
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > As promised at yesterday's Go/No-Go meeting, I'm starting a discussion
> > on the Alpha criterion that states: "The default desktop background
> > must be different f
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:30:44 -0400
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> As promised at yesterday's Go/No-Go meeting, I'm starting a discussion
> on the Alpha criterion that states: "The default desktop background
> must be different from that of the two previous stable releases."
>
> As I understand it, t
There are pros and cons to a generic background to pass the blocker
status. The benefit of course is that it fulfills the need to be a
different background and thus detectable as not the latest/stable etc. The
cons is that quality of that generic background image may be less than it
currently is,
"Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
question.
Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
desirable but not a blocking issue.
If lovely new art is not available, some generic "Fnn" background could
be used then replaced by an update after release
As promised at yesterday's Go/No-Go meeting, I'm starting a discussion
on the Alpha criterion that states: "The default desktop background
must be different from that of the two previous stable releases."
As I understand it, the intent is essentially that no one booting a
Fedora pre-release should
27 matches
Mail list logo
