On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 21:07 +, BeartoothHOS wrote:
> How is that paradigm meant to apply to those absent-minded souls
> among us who disremember what an otherwise familiar item is called? There
> are a bunch of things (in fact more as time passes, alas!, especially
> anent renamed one
On Mon, 09 May 2011 13:20:18 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
[]
> In fact, these difficulties with hierarchical menus were one of the main
> underlying motivations for the design of the shell overview. Not
> surprisingly, the shell overview does not have these problems, mostly.
> The prim
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 15:14 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 14:22:00 -0400
> James Laska wrote:
>
> > For example, if I activate the overview and
> > type "terminal" ... if two identical entries show up matching
> > "Terminal" ... someone needs to fix their .desktop, right?
>
> No
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 12:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 14:22 -0400, James Laska wrote:
>
> > Tom's comment in another email makes me wonder if we want to keep this
> > criteria, but rephrase. I agree with Matthias' thoughts on having items
> > show up in multiple catego
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 13:35 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 13:20:18 -0400
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > > No application may unintentionally appear twice in the menus. In
> > > particular,
> > > items under System must not appear under Applications
> >
> > This basically doe
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 14:22 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> Tom's comment in another email makes me wonder if we want to keep this
> criteria, but rephrase. I agree with Matthias' thoughts on having items
> show up in multiple categories. Perhaps it can be reworded such that we
> would capture any c
On Mon, 09 May 2011 14:22:00 -0400
James Laska wrote:
> For example, if I activate the overview and
> type "terminal" ... if two identical entries show up matching
> "Terminal" ... someone needs to fix their .desktop, right?
Not really. On my f15 beta, one of them is apparently konsole
and the ot
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 10:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 13:20 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > James has asked me to write something about the desktop-related release
> > criteria in the light of bug
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697834
Thank you Matthi
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 13:20 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> James has asked me to write something about the desktop-related release
> criteria in the light of bug
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697834
>
> Starting with the bug itself, I'll state that I don't think it is a
> blocker
On Mon, 09 May 2011 13:20:18 -0400
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > No application may unintentionally appear twice in the menus. In
> > particular,
> > items under System must not appear under Applications
>
> This basically does not apply to the shell overview.
What about applications that merel
James has asked me to write something about the desktop-related release
criteria in the light of bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697834
Starting with the bug itself, I'll state that I don't think it is a
blocker that we should fix for F15. It has made it to the blocker list
because
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:46 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 12:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:27 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> >
> > > > "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
> > > > installation from a clean, fully updated d
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 12:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:27 -0400, James Laska wrote:
>
> > > "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
> > > installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any
> > > official install medium) of
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:27 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> > "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
> > installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any
> > official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either
> > via preupgrade or by
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 03/28/2011 11:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > If you actually think there's something about my proposed changes that
> > > should be revised, please state specifi
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 03/28/2011 11:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > If you actually think there's something about my proposed changes that
> > > should be revised, please state specifi
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 10:10 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 09:13 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:41 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:40:07 -0700,
> > > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree 'supported'
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:32 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 13:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey, all. I'm currently poking at the release criteria to try and
> > address a few issues that have come up during blocker meetings. I have
> > drafts of revised versions of al
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 09:13 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:41 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:40:07 -0700,
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree 'supported' isn't quite the right word, but I think we need some
> > > kind of adj
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:41 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:40:07 -0700,
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > I agree 'supported' isn't quite the right word, but I think we need some
> > kind of adjective there. I'll try and think of something better.
>
> Something needs
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:40:07 -0700,
Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I agree 'supported' isn't quite the right word, but I think we need some
> kind of adjective there. I'll try and think of something better.
Something needs to be said there, as otherwise people will wonder why only
some of the
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 04:08 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 01:07 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> >> Added KDE there since it can currently block the release and is
> >> presented as an alternative installa
On 03/29/2011 01:07 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
>> Added KDE there since it can currently block the release and is
>> presented as an alternative installation option on the DVD.
> So, here's my thinking on this. For all desktop cr
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:31 +0530, Ashwin Mansinghka wrote:
> To really make it future proof a lightweight desktop e.g. LXDE (not just
> a spin) must be included as fully supported and as default desktop
> alongside the heavy weights.
> Notebooks and tablets is the future.
For the third time: t
On 03/29/2011 08:26 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:07:24 -0700,
>Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>
>>> Added KDE there since it can currently block the release and is
>>> presented as an alternative installat
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:07:24 -0700,
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> > Added KDE there since it can currently block the release and is
> > presented as an alternative installation option on the DVD.
>
> So, here's my thinking o
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Added KDE there since it can currently block the release and is
> presented as an alternative installation option on the DVD.
So, here's my thinking on this. For all desktop criteria, change the
wording 'desktop' or 'default des
On 03/28/2011 11:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It may be worth explicitly stating that any kind of supported install
> should be upgradeable, how about:
>
> "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
> installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any
>
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 11:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > If you actually think there's something about my proposed changes that
> > should be revised, please state specifically what it is and give your
> > alternative text
>
> "The inst
On 03/28/2011 11:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you actually think there's something about my proposed changes that
> should be revised, please state specifically what it is and give your
> alternative text
"The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
installation from a cle
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 23:02 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 10:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Can you *please* stop derailing these threads? I was asking for feedback
> > on the specific proposed changes, not any old random ideas anyone has
> > for changes to the criteria.
On 03/28/2011 10:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Can you*please* stop derailing these threads? I was asking for feedback
on the specific proposed changes, not any old random ideas anyone has
for changes to the criteria. If you want to propose some changes that
are different from mine, please draft
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 22:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> It would be good if you would include all the live media atleast the
> handout media.
>
> So we would cover all the *DE and what else we hand out at various events.
Can you *please* stop derailing these threads? I was asking fo
On 03/28/2011 10:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'd like to propose one additional change. I'd like to extend this Beta
> criterion:
>
> "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
> installation from a clean, fully updated default installation of the
> previous stable Fedora r
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 13:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, all. I'm currently poking at the release criteria to try and
> address a few issues that have come up during blocker meetings. I have
> drafts of revised versions of all three pages up:
So aside from the long sidetrack, I didn't get
On 03/18/2011 06:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 17:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
>>> This also applies to the question of which spins block the release.
>>> That's not something that is defined in the criteria, or that should be.
>>> It's an issue for the Board a
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 17:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > This also applies to the question of which spins block the release.
> > That's not something that is defined in the criteria, or that should be.
> > It's an issue for the Board and the Spins SIG, which have been
> > discussing i
On 03/18/2011 10:39 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Personally I feel that everything should get an equal treatment within
> the community hence we should have a process that treats each spin
> equally thus we should either focus on what ever is currently
> implemented as an "Default" or al
On 03/18/2011 05:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As James said, that's considerably beyond the scope of both this thread
and this group. It's not QA's job to define the vision of the project,
it's our job to validate the release process and the released products
that we*do* have. If you want to ch
On 03/18/2011 03:52 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I'd like to see some spelled out criteria for determining which spins can
> block
> a release, I don't think all spins being able to block a release is a good
> idea, with the way spins are handled now. Personally I'd like to see criteria
> that all
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 15:14 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/18/2011 02:27 PM, James Laska wrote:
> >> I disagree with this. A lot of what we want tested needs a graphical
> >> desktop.
> >> > If we were to ship an Alpha without a working desktop, we wouldn't get
> >> > much
> >> >
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 14:11:59 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>
> Due to historical reasons the readiness of the KDE spin has had the
> ability to block the final release of the "Default" spin hence I
> propose that no spin can block the release of the "Default" what ever
> tha
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 15:14 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/18/2011 02:27 PM, James Laska wrote:
> >> I disagree with this. A lot of what we want tested needs a graphical
> >> desktop.
> >> > If we were to ship an Alpha without a working desktop, we wouldn't get
> >> > much
> >> >
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 15:14:41 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
> ( Rawhide users/reporters should know it's broken in the first place and
> provide feedback )
By alpha we are working with 'branched' not 'rawhide'. The point remains
valid, but using the wrong name for it might cause
On 03/18/2011 02:27 PM, James Laska wrote:
>> I disagree with this. A lot of what we want tested needs a graphical desktop.
>> > If we were to ship an Alpha without a working desktop, we wouldn't get
>> > much
>> > feedback (other than that the desktop doesn't work).
That's mostly cause we are
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 09:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:58:26 +,
> "\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
> > On 03/17/2011 08:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Alpha: Actually account for firstboot, which we completely ignored until
> > > now. The criterion abou
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:58:26 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
> On 03/17/2011 08:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Alpha: Actually account for firstboot, which we completely ignored until
> > now. The criterion about 'booting to a working desktop' was split into
> > two and now cove
Given that we are revisting the release criteria I propose that we
update ourselves to more recent times to reflect the project more
accurately.
Due to historical reasons the readiness of the KDE spin has had the
ability to block the final release of the "Default" spin hence I
propose that
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 13:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Can everyone let me know what they think of these changes? Thanks!
>
> There may be a few more coming later as I go through the blocker meeting
> logs.
I hope you don't mind ... but my brain+eyes needed to see a patch
(available at http:
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 14:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 20:35 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
>
> > Should there be an explicit requirement for Final at least, that the image
> > itself have a working mediacheck?
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676551
>
On 03/17/2011 08:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Alpha: Actually account for firstboot, which we completely ignored until
> now. The criterion about 'booting to a working desktop' was split into
> two and now covers firstboot. I also explicitly called out encryption
> here, and tweaked the language
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 20:35 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Should there be an explicit requirement for Final at least, that the image
> itself have a working mediacheck?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676551
>
> Although an external check is always possible, and necessary to ver
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> Hey, all. I'm currently poking at the release criteria to try and
> address a few issues that have come up during blocker meetings. I have
> drafts of revised versions of all three pages up:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Alpha_criter
Hey, all. I'm currently poking at the release criteria to try and
address a few issues that have come up during blocker meetings. I have
drafts of revised versions of all three pages up:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Alpha_criteria_revision
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:
54 matches
Mail list logo
