On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:46 PM Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Honestly, I don't really like...any of these. I kinda get the intent > but they all feel icky, mushy and squishy. > It also feels too vague to me. Even our existing sentence "All Fedora artwork visible in critical path actions on release-blocking desktops must be consistent with the proposed final theme." is too vague and I can't *currently* say what it means exactly. And the proposed changes are even more vague. They seem to be driven by future-proofing, but I'd rather keep clearer criteria now and adjust them only when needed. (If I misunderstood the motivation, please provide a longer explanation). Are there any existing issues that triggered these proposals? [1] I envision a world where we could theoretically have the > "Background Logo" GNOME extension display a "pre-release" notation or > something similar. > So using the same background as the last stable release, but adding a "pre-release" watermark would be satisfactory for you? I'd find that utterly confusing. That looks like a criterion downgrade.
_______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
