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
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".
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?
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?
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
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@redhat.com 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
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@gmail.comwrote:
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@redhat.comwrote:
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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
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.
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/66b8a7b84244a...
luke
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org 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.
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@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
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?
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org 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.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org 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)
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-reporter...
Luya
-----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@fedoraproject.org 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.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com 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@fedoraproject.org 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.
Matthias Clasen (mclasen@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
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@splat.cc 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@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
Hi
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Elad Alfassa elad@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@splat.cc 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".
Can this "feature" be backed out of the Fedora update for now while it is getting fixed? Its pretty annoying
Rahul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/03/2014 03:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthias Clasen (mclasen@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.
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
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
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@redhat.com 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
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
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@redhat.com To: desktop@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@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Alberto Ruiz -
alex diavatis -
Bill Nottingham -
drago01 -
Elad Alfassa -
Jiri Eischmann -
Luke Macken -
Luya Tshimbalanga -
Matthew Garrett -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Clasen -
Rahul Sundaram -
Richard Turner -
Stephen Gallagher