<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
On 08/30/2014 10:52 AM, Pete Travis wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">><br>
> On 08/30/2014 10:42 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:<br>
> > On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 19:22 +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:<br>
> >> I really don't undertand why "not installing the
release notes" is<br>
> >> such a big change we need to wait for the next cycle
to implement.<br>
> >> It's really just a one line change. And if we want
to install them but<br>
> >> not provide a launcher (so they could be opened by a
bookmark in<br>
> >> Firefox) than I'd happily provide a patch to split
the launcher to a<br>
> >> subpackage.<br>
><br>
> > Eh, I'm just picking my battles here. A Release Notes
launcher that<br>
> > starts Firefox is not good and we should get rid of it,
but it's not<br>
> > very bad either and if the release notes people want
another cycle to<br>
> > rethink how to present the release notes, well why not
let them have it?<br>
><br>
> > Another thing we could do is add it as a default web
app. GNOME Software<br>
> > requires "epiphany-runtime" which is all of Epiphany
except the desktop<br>
> > file, so that it can install and remove web apps. Well,
why not make the<br>
> > release notes a web app -- then the release notes team
gets to keep the<br>
> > desktop launcher, and we are happy since it's a real
application.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Someone had proposed that in #fedora-docs late yesterday, I
like it. I'm working on some copy right now, and will go for an
ephiphany web-app style presentation in GNOME for the next RPM.<br>
><br>
> For the record, the collaboration part of my arguments here
are *far* more important to me than the actual inclusion of a
Release Notes RPM. It's a valid discussion, and I would much
rather start on that basis, instead of potentially missing a
discussion about a design philosophy on a SIG list, then finding
out about the impact when I learn that an RC isn't meeting release
criteria because of my package.<br>
><br>
></span><br>
<br>
There's a more native presentation in an RPM available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=573983">http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=573983</a> , or
soon from an updates-testing mirror near you. What do you think?<br>
- -- <br>
- -- Pete Travis<br>
- Fedora Docs Project Leader<br>
- 'randomuser' on freenode<br>
- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:immanetize@fedoraproject.org">immanetize@fedoraproject.org</a><br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1<br>
<br>
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUBKiGAAoJEL1wZM0+jj2Z4BcIAISuRQiZwyQZVvjQdedjl7OD<br>
E5/xMPo0Z0FhZvbYU/rjO/q5vbzXwRrMpAMRxvlu4SnxLsxcMffOiYz0kV4iCYZI<br>
6sD7w0rilEXycw8a0c7U44I4QCNOt5oR15UlLjvdHKv7Q0nfRyvJglhw+ycvUWG4<br>
+vvzM9oc4KRHywUjGRIcp2WhPLH0rtF4UEdePBmDCOrk8xioqQjbSeWsVmjXqWwp<br>
WkGCM6jKmth5oO+Gs5rzOl6Zvy3Cu889M47iMrx3s2GNdMI2LxnPQlg+E2TJ7u+G<br>
V0bBUrMbsbKRgN0T5JARKMIlmRMDQidpTKm9e8JvDuKc505XnTMFS762bf20i/0=<br>
=nHvf<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>