tmraz at redhat.com
Wed Sep 22 13:34:28 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 12:48 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 15:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> Greetings.
> >> I'd like to ask for feedback and helping cleaning up an updates policy
> >> draft page:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
> >> How can we clarify the language or the layout of the page to be more
> >> clear? Are there places that it could be more like the existing package
> >> update howto page? Could we be more detailed about what bodhi enforces
> >> and whats just good practice?
> >> Are there other exceptions cases that could be covered that you can
> >> think of?
> >> NOTE that this is a draft. I'd like constructive feedback.
> >> If we can get something that looks ok by next week, FESCo would like to
> >> approve this and put it in place.
> >> Please do try and keep technical and constructive in replies, pretty
> >> please? With a cherry on top?
> > - Avoid changing the user experence if at all possible. - this is too
> > strong condition. In some cases fixing a bug might inevitable change the
> > user experience and in some cases for example the user experience might
> > be just severally improved with the new release. So IMO this should be
> > reworded with much less strong wording such as 'Avoid major changes and
> > worsening the user experience if at all possible.'
> Define "worsening" being different by itself is "worsening" for a lot of people.
It's clear that this cannot be a hard rule if we do not want to make
Fedora ultra-conservative distribution. There are much better choices
for ultra-conservative users.
> > This example is IMO wrong:
> > - WebKit requires an update to solve a security problem. This requires
> > updating Midori to a version with some minor menu layout changes. This
> > would be a judgement call based on how intrusive the changes are
> > (removing the File menu would be rude, but moving the plugin
> > configuration menu item would be acceptable).
> > In this case even major changes in user experience are justified -
> > knowingly insecure web browser just should not be used.
> That isn't any different than the firefox example on the page i.e
> already covered.
Yes, and that's the reason the example is wrong and it should be
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
More information about the devel