----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Garrett" <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org>
To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop"
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 11:46:38 PM
Subject: Re: Workstation PRD approval
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:47:48PM +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
> I did rewrite part of the PRD to make it an (even more) explicit part of
> the project, I just didn't want it in the usecase list due to the way we
> are focusing the development effort around the desktop I don't want to
> give a false impression of a lot of engineering resources being put into
> specific development for 'general users'.
So who do we expect to provide those engineering resources? We seem to
agree that those general users are, in many cases, the developers and
enthusiasts that we expect to support, so we need to ensure that there's
development effort put into ensuring that the desktop experience itself
I expect the vast majority of our engineering resources to come from Red Hat.
> Our 'general user' story is that we will have a solid
> 'just works' and of course many of the applications packaged for Fedora
> are of interest to general users.
> But to me if we are to add 'general users' as a usecase it should be
> accompanied by plans to write new desktop applications for Fedora that
> would appeal to such users. For instance if we planned to write a
> desktop Hulu app or a Facebook assistant or whatever the idea would be.
The list of use cases is supposed to define the sets of users that we'll
consider during development. We agree that the needs of the general
desktop user are important and have to be considered during development,
which means that it's a supported use case. Which obviously means it
should be enumerated in the set of use cases.
I disagree, it is meant to enumerate the areas we give special focus during development.
Adding a 'catch all' usecase
like 'general users' doesn't help anyone do anything.
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
desktop mailing list