Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update

[Matthias Clasen]

Hey,

so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
already received fairly wide testing.

But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports
with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the
parallel nature of the copr itself.

Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?

Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ?

If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major
problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception.


Matthias

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:

>  Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? 
Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then 
they'll stop working until updated.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 03:52:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>  > Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>  Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then 
>  they'll stop working until updated. 
I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost everything
worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated. Also,
when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_ of
the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to get the
remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd be pretty
comfortable recommending this as an F20 update.

When I'm _running_ 3.12, I can get the web site to give me a list of all
the extensions sorted by popularity, with the ones that aren't compatible
grayed out. Can one do that _for 3.12_ from a 3.10 system? Then I can send
out a link that says "Check if the stuff you really care about needs a
update".

-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
                                  "Tepid change for the somewhat better!"

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:22:41AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:

>  I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost
> everything
>  worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated. Also,
>  when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_ of
>  the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to get the
>  remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd be pretty
>  comfortable recommending this as an F20 update. 
But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual process on 
the part of the user, right?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>  > I've had a pretty good experience here this time around.
> Almost everything
>  > worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated. Also,
>  > when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_ of
>  > the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to get the
>  > remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd be pretty
>  > comfortable recommending this as an F20 update.
>  But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual process on 
>  the part of the user, right? 
Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do that manual
process fairly often.

I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any suggestions for
unstopping it, anyone?

-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
                                  "Tepid change for the somewhat better!"

[Matthias Clasen]

On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:43 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>  > > I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost everything
>  > > worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated. Also,
>  > > when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_ of
>  > > the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to get the
>  > > remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd be pretty
>  > > comfortable recommending this as an F20 update.
>  > But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual process on 
>  > the part of the user, right?
>  
>  Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do that manual
>  process fairly often.
>  
>  I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any suggestions for
>  unstopping it, anyone? 
It would be good to know if there are widely-used extensions that will
not continue to work when you install 3.12 and then

gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation false

The one example I have seen mentioned so far is
gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg

[alex diavatis]

>  gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation
> false 
If you do this, then extension.gnome.org will let you to install extensions
for every version.
So you will definitely get broken extensions.
That isn't the case for now, but it is a known bug, that may resolve at
some point.

Other than this it also creates issues in Tweak Tool,
that people use a lot for managing their extensions. For example Tweak Tool
won't show incompatibilities.

- alex


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:43 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost
> everything
> > > > worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated.
> Also,
> > > > when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity,
> _most_ of
> > > > the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to
get
> the
> > > > remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd
be
> pretty
> > > > comfortable recommending this as an F20 update.
> > > But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual process on
> > > the part of the user, right?
> >
> > Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do that manual
> > process fairly often.
> >
> > I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any suggestions
> for
> > unstopping it, anyone?
>
> It would be good to know if there are widely-used extensions that will
> not continue to work when you install 3.12 and then
>
>  gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation
> false 
>
> The one example I have seen mentioned so far is
> gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg
>
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
>

[alex diavatis]

>  gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation
> false 
Obviously I mean if you set it on true :)


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:07 PM, alex diavatis <alexis.diavatis(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>
>  gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation
> false 
>
> If you do this, then extension.gnome.org will let you to install
> extensions for every version.
> So you will definitely get broken extensions.
> That isn't the case for now, but it is a known bug, that may resolve at
> some point.
>
> Other than this it also creates issues in Tweak Tool,
> that people use a lot for managing their extensions. For example Tweak
> Tool won't show incompatibilities.
>
> - alex
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com&gt;wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:43 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > > > I've had a pretty good experience here this time around.
Almost
>> everything
>> > > > worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were
updated.
>> Also,
>> > > > when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by
popularity,
>> _most_ of
>> > > > the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to
get
>> the
>> > > > remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then
I'd be
>> pretty
>> > > > comfortable recommending this as an F20 update.
>> > > But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual process
on
>> > > the part of the user, right?
>> >
>> > Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do that
>> manual
>> > process fairly often.
>> >
>> > I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any suggestions
>> for
>> > unstopping it, anyone?
>>
>> It would be good to know if there are widely-used extensions that will
>> not continue to work when you install 3.12 and then
>>
>
>  gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation
> false 
>>
>> The one example I have seen mentioned so far is
>> gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg
>>
>> --
>> desktop mailing list
>> desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
>>
>
>

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:03:13PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>  > > But actually updating the ones that don't work is a
> manual process on 
>  > > the part of the user, right?
>  > I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any suggestions for
>  > unstopping it, anyone?
>  It would be good to know if there are widely-used extensions that will
>  not continue to work when you install 3.12 and then 
Is the popularity sort on https://extensions.gnome.org/ reasonably accurate
and in-line with the real world? If so, that makes that question answerable
in a quantifiable way. In my experience the answer has been "mostly they
work", but that's just anecdotal.

-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
                                  "Tepid change for the somewhat better!"

[Luke Macken]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:03:13PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>  It would be good to know if there are widely-used extensions that
> will
>  not continue to work when you install 3.12 and then
>  
>  gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation false
>  
>  The one example I have seen mentioned so far is
>  gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg 
I just pushed out a new release of gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg that works with 3.12

https://github.com/lmacken/gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg/commit/66b8a7b842...

luke

[drago01]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost everything
> > > worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated. Also,
> > > when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_ of
> > > the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to get the
> > > remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd be pretty
> > > comfortable recommending this as an F20 update.
> > But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual process on
> > the part of the user, right?
>
>  Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do that manual
>  process fairly often.
>
>  I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any suggestions for
>  unstopping it, anyone? 
How about this:
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
?

Testing welcome I just wrote it so got very limited testing so far.

[alex diavatis]

>  https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
Pretty cool, it works here. It is so cool that it should be included in
Shell by default :)


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:10 PM, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> > I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost
> everything
> >> > worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated.
> Also,
> >> > when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity,
> _most_ of
> >> > the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to get
the
> >> > remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd be
> pretty
> >> > comfortable recommending this as an F20 update.
> >> But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual process on
> >> the part of the user, right?
> >
> > Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do that manual
> > process fairly often.
> >
> > I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any suggestions
> for
> > unstopping it, anyone?
>
> How about this:
>  https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
> ?
>
> Testing welcome I just wrote it so got very limited testing so far.
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
>

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:18:24PM +0300, alex diavatis wrote:
>  >
> https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
>  Pretty cool, it works here. It is so cool that it should be included in
>  Shell by default :) 
Awesome. I've installed it and will back a few of my extensions to older
versions to see what happens.

if not included in the shell by default, we could package it and ship it
with the update to F20, right?

-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
                                  "Tepid change for the somewhat better!"

[drago01]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:18:24PM +0300, alex diavatis wrote:
> > > https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
> > Pretty cool, it works here. It is so cool that it should be included in
> > Shell by default :)
>
>  Awesome. I've installed it and will back a few of my extensions to older
>  versions to see what happens.
>
>  if not included in the shell by default, 
It cannot really be part of the shell now not before 3.14

>  we could package it and ship it  with the update to F20, right?
If that's the only thing that blocks the 3.12 update we should consider that.

[drago01]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:18:24PM +0300, alex diavatis wrote:
> > > https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
> > Pretty cool, it works here. It is so cool that it should be included in
> > Shell by default :)
>
>  Awesome. I've installed it and will back a few of my extensions 
Note: You don't have to really downgrade you could just downgrade the
version in the metadata.json files.
(~/.local/share/gnome-shell/extensions/*/metadata.json)

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

On 04/03/2014 10:10 AM, drago01 wrote:
>  How about this:
>  https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
>  ?
>
>  Testing welcome I just wrote it so got very limited testing so far. 
It seems
working. In addition, taking  inspiration from Firefox add-on 
compatibility report would be welcome.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-repor...

Luya

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/03/2014 01:10 PM, drago01 wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>> I've had a pretty good experience here this time around.
> >>> Almost everything worked when I told it to not do the check,
> >>> and others were updated. Also, when I look at
> >>> https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_
> >>> of the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an
> >>> effort to get the remaining few that are on the top N pages
> >>> updated, and then I'd be pretty comfortable recommending this
> >>> as an F20 update.
> >> But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual
> >> process on the part of the user, right?
> > 
> > Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do
> > that manual process fairly often.
> > 
> > I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any
> > suggestions for unstopping it, anyone?
>  
>  How about this: 
>  https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
>
>   
?
>  
>  Testing welcome I just wrote it so got very limited testing so
>  far.
>   
How does this play with extensions that are packaged in RPMs (such as
the extensions that come with GNOME Classic)? I'm guessing it would
encourage you to install the local copy in your home directory, which
would diverge from the system copy.

Speaking from past experience, this can make it hard to sort out
extension problems when updating to a development version of GNOME.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEUEARECAAYFAlM+psoACgkQeiVVYja6o6MbiwCgma14BTjMXdh/iiJLcZc63wZ1
> npgAlRWkU2I1Uec2ZJi6svaCuuJHZFM=
> =cORS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[drago01]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  On 04/03/2014 01:10 PM, drago01 wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Miller
> > <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>>> I've had a pretty good experience here this time around.
> >>>> Almost everything worked when I told it to not do the check,
> >>>> and others were updated. Also, when I look at
> >>>> https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_
> >>>> of the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an
> >>>> effort to get the remaining few that are on the top N pages
> >>>> updated, and then I'd be pretty comfortable recommending this
> >>>> as an F20 update.
> >>> But actually updating the ones that don't work is a manual
> >>> process on the part of the user, right?
> >>
> >> Yeah -- see devel list post. I forgot about that because I do
> >> that manual process fairly often.
> >>
> >> I kind of feel like this is, therefore, a showstopper. Any
> >> suggestions for unstopping it, anyone?
> >
> > How about this:
> > https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/797/extension-update-notifier/
> >
> >
>  ?
> >
> > Testing welcome I just wrote it so got very limited testing so
> > far.
> >
>
>  How does this play with extensions that are packaged in RPMs (such as
>  the extensions that come with GNOME Classic)? I'm guessing it would
>  encourage you to install the local copy in your home directory, which
>  would diverge from the system copy. 
Good point, updated a new version that ignores system wide extensions.

[Bill Nottingham]

Matthias Clasen (mclasen(a)redhat.com) said: 
>  Hey,
>  
>  so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
>  Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
>  already received fairly wide testing.
>  
>  But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports
>  with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the
>  parallel nature of the copr itself.
>  
>  Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>  
>  Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? 
I've yet to file a bug because I haven't narrowed it down, but about 1/3 of
the time the mouse cursor disappears when in gnome-terminal. Makes selection
tricky, obviously. This may not be a show-stopper.

Bill

[Elad Alfassa]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)splat.cc&gt; wrote:

>  I've yet to file a bug because I haven't narrowed it down, but about 1/3 of
>  the time the mouse cursor disappears when in gnome-terminal. Makes
>  selection
>  tricky, obviously. This may not be a show-stopper.
>
>  Bill
>  --
>  desktop mailing list
>  desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
>  

Known bug. Or rather, known "feature".

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725342

-- 
-Elad Alfassa.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Elad Alfassa <elad(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)splat.cc&gt; wrote:
>
> >
> > I've yet to file a bug because I haven't narrowed it down, but about 1/3
> > of
> > the time the mouse cursor disappears when in gnome-terminal. Makes
> > selection
> > tricky, obviously. This may not be a show-stopper.
> >
>
>  Known bug. Or rather, known "feature".
>
>  https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725342
>  
Can this "feature" be backed out of the Fedora update for now while it is
getting fixed?  Its pretty annoying

Rahul

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/03/2014 03:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Matthias Clasen (mclasen(a)redhat.com) said:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work
> > of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages
> > that have already received fairly wide testing.
> > 
> > But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem
> > reports with the copr packages, besides dependency problems
> > caused by the parallel nature of the copr itself.
> > 
> > Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
> > 
> > Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with
> > applications ?
>  
>  I've yet to file a bug because I haven't narrowed it down, but
>  about 1/3 of the time the mouse cursor disappears when in
>  gnome-terminal. Makes selection tricky, obviously. This may not be
>  a show-stopper.
>   
I've hit this as well, but a single-click always restores its
appearance for me.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlM+puoACgkQeiVVYja6o6M/LgCeJ//LZ6ESpUX+fP3bxoskEDR/
> +JMAn1Xnlxqk0T1tADeG4XX6A76Yq5jk
> =VRoU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jiri Eischmann]

Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400:
>  Hey,
>  
>  so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
>  Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
>  already received fairly wide testing.
>  
>  But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports
>  with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the
>  parallel nature of the copr itself.
>  
>  Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>  
>  Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ?
>  
>  If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major
>  problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. 
Hi,
I've been using Richard's repo for two weeks. Here are some problems
I've encountered:

First after the upgrade I didn't even boot to GDM. Too bad I didn't
debug it because I had already been considering a clean install, so I
did it right away. My setup was not typical, I had been upgrading since
F15. But apparently I was not the only one. One guy on the forum
complained about a very similar problem. He blames i686 packages and
their dependencies which might have been my problem as well because due
to Steam I also had a lot from the graphics stack installed in i686
versions. But this is a case of my users and we should look into it
because there can't be a worse scenario from user's POV than not booting
into UI after updates.

I've had quite a lot of problems with GNOME Software. It froze when
hitting the Install button quite often. It couldn't find some
applications. For example it couldn't find GNOME Photos, so I had to
install it in yum. It didn't load the large banner of the picked app on
the front page in many occasions.

The hiding pointer in GNOME Terminal is pretty annoying.

I haven't found a way to set up a connection via bluetooth with a
connected device. There is no such option in the bluetooth module in the
system settings and the network module or network section in the user
menu don't provide such an option either after you set up a connection
with a bluetooth device. I find this a significant regression. 

Otherwise it's been a pleasant experience and this release of GNOME
seems to be very solid. But I would rather wait for at least 3.12.1
release and discuss it with Fedora QA because the upgrade should have at
least a bit of systematic testing.

Jiri

[Alberto Ruiz]

On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 10:20 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>  Hey,
>  
>  so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
>  Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
>  already received fairly wide testing.
>  
>  But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports
>  with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the
>  parallel nature of the copr itself.
>  
>  Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>  
>  Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? 
I get random crashes on the shell, and on Software. Also, when I switch
my WiFi adapter off and then I turn it on again, NetworkManager crashes
too (I am not sure if NM is part of the COPR but I didn't have any
issues in F20/GNOME3.10).

I am not sure we're quite ready for prime time.

>  If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of
> major
>  problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception.
>  
>  
>  Matthias
>   
-- 
Greetings,
Alberto Ruiz
Engineering Manager - Desktop Applications Team
Red Hat, Inc.

[Richard Turner]

SSH Search and Firefox Bookmarks Search extensions are both broken in GNOME
3.12. There's another I use that's also broken, but I can't remember which
at the moment (sorry, not very useful).

I imagine all extensions that register a search provider are broken because
of this: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=727461

R

"Racing turtles, the grapefruit is winning..."
On 8 Apr 2014 11:38, "Alberto Ruiz" <aruiz(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 10:20 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>  > Hey,
>  >
>  > so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
>  > Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
>  > already received fairly wide testing.
>  >
>  > But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports
>  > with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the
>  > parallel nature of the copr itself.
>  >
>  > Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>  >
>  > Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ?
>
>  I get random crashes on the shell, and on Software. Also, when I switch
>  my WiFi adapter off and then I turn it on again, NetworkManager crashes
>  too (I am not sure if NM is part of the COPR but I didn't have any
>  issues in F20/GNOME3.10).
>
>  I am not sure we're quite ready for prime time.
>
>  > If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major
>  > problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception.
>  >
>  >
>  > Matthias
>  >
>
>  --
>  Greetings,
>  Alberto Ruiz
>  Engineering Manager - Desktop Applications Team
>  Red Hat, Inc.
>
>
>
>  --
>  desktop mailing list
>  desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update - brightness problems

[Jiri Eischmann]

Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400:
>  Hey,
>  
>  so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
>  Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
>  already received fairly wide testing.
>  
>  But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports
>  with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the
>  parallel nature of the copr itself.
>  
>  Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>  
>  Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ?
>  
>  If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major
>  problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. 
I've hit another annoying problem. I cannot change brightness level. The
Fn keys don't work at all, when changing it in the user menu or power
management settings it changes the backlight randomly in one of ten
attempts. Moreover indicator in the user menu always shows zero level of
backlight.
I always blamed drivers or something lower in the graphics stack for
this. But it works perfectly in KDE and I can also change backlight with
xbacklight or xrandr.
I'm using up-to-date Fedora 20+GNOME 3.12 Copr on Lenovo X240.
Anyone has hit the same problem?
BTW the more I'm using GNOME 3.12 the more I think it's not ready for
the prime time. I'd rather wait for fixing releases.

Jiri

Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update - brightness problems

[Alberto Ruiz]

I have had similar issues with brigthness when I dock/undock my T430s, however they have
been fixed by the latest updates of the COPR

----- Original Message -----
From: Jiri Eischmann <eischmann(a)redhat.com&gt;
To: desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update - brightness problems

Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400:
>  Hey,
>  
>  so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
>  Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
>  already received fairly wide testing.
>  
>  But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports
>  with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the
>  parallel nature of the copr itself.
>  
>  Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>  
>  Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ?
>  
>  If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major
>  problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. 
I've hit another annoying problem. I cannot change brightness level. The
Fn keys don't work at all, when changing it in the user menu or power
management settings it changes the backlight randomly in one of ten
attempts. Moreover indicator in the user menu always shows zero level of
backlight.
I always blamed drivers or something lower in the graphics stack for
this. But it works perfectly in KDE and I can also change backlight with
xbacklight or xrandr.
I'm using up-to-date Fedora 20+GNOME 3.12 Copr on Lenovo X240.
Anyone has hit the same problem?
BTW the more I'm using GNOME 3.12 the more I think it's not ready for
the prime time. I'd rather wait for fixing releases.

Jiri 


-- 
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop