Following the previous discussion [1] and the gathered support, here's a proposal for the user switching criterion. I believe we should put it into the Final milestone [2].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ User switching
User switching must work using the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops in their default configuration.
What is user switching? User switching is a process of changing the currently presented desktop session between concurrent sessions of two or more different users. The user sessions keep running in the background, and users can switch between them repeatedly without losing any running application state. For the purpose of this criterion, user switching doesn't include switching between different sessions of the *same* user.
Work? The switching mechanism must correctly attempt the requested operation. If the operation doesn't work on a subset of graphical drivers, the release blocking decision should be based on the number of affected users, the problem severity and available workarounds (as is our [standard procedure](Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements)[3]). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "in their default configuration" part is there to cover only cases where the system hasn't been modified in a substantial (and relevant) way. This will exclude cases where people e.g. install several desktop environments, replace their DM for a different one, tweak systemd settings, or install a non-default graphics driver.
In the last paragraph I explicitly pointed out that we'll use our usual approach of judging the impact if the issue only affects certain configurations. I hope that alleviates some hardware-related concerns.
Note: I considered the option to also include user switching in text-only environments (simultaneous user login on different VTs, as is common on Server), but it's not completely the same. I concluded it's better to have a separate and tailored criterion for it, if there's interest.
Please comment, thank you.
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test%40lists.fedoraproject.org... https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.or... https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org/th... https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/139 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirem...
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 17:51 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
For the purpose of this criterion, user switching doesn't include switching between different sessions of the *same* user.
Rather than "doesn't include" I'd suggest "need not include".
Maybe also add wording to suggest this doesn't cover switching between two different DEs (though that's actually the use case I'm most interested in personally).
poc
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:15 PM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 17:51 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
For the purpose of this criterion, user switching doesn't include
switching
between different sessions of the *same* user.
Rather than "doesn't include" I'd suggest "need not include".
I'm not a native speaker, but that doesn't seem to convey what I'm trying to say. "For the purpose of this criterion" is the important part. We don't want different sessions of the same user to be considered blocking. So in this criterion, it's not considered user switching. In general sense, it probably is (but that doesn't matter).
Maybe also add wording to suggest this doesn't cover switching between two different DEs (though that's actually the use case I'm most interested in personally).
I did. See this explanation note: "The "in their default configuration" part is there to cover only cases where the system hasn't been modified in a substantial (and relevant) way. This will exclude cases where people e.g. install several desktop environments, replace their DM for a different one, tweak systemd settings, or install a non-default graphics driver." Perhaps I can add it as another footnote box directly to the criterion, I'm not sure. AdamW, what do you think?
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 10:40 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:15 PM Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 17:51 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
For the purpose of this criterion, user switching doesn't include
switching
between different sessions of the *same* user.
Rather than "doesn't include" I'd suggest "need not include".
I'm not a native speaker, but that doesn't seem to convey what I'm trying to say. "For the purpose of this criterion" is the important part. We don't want different sessions of the same user to be considered blocking. So in this criterion, it's not considered user switching. In general sense, it probably is (but that doesn't matter).
I agree with Kamil here, I find his original wording better. "Need not include" implies that it *could* be included, which is not what we're trying to say, we are trying to say it's definitely not included - that a bug which only affected switching between multiple sessions of one user would not be release-blocking.
Maybe also add wording to suggest this doesn't cover switching between two different DEs (though that's actually the use case I'm most interested in personally).
I did. See this explanation note: "The "in their default configuration" part is there to cover only cases where the system hasn't been modified in a substantial (and relevant) way. This will exclude cases where people e.g. install several desktop environments, replace their DM for a different one, tweak systemd settings, or install a non-default graphics driver." Perhaps I can add it as another footnote box directly to the criterion, I'm not sure. AdamW, what do you think?
I agree that "in their default configuration" covers it, but an explicit footnote couldn't hurt, it's always good to be clear.
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:51 PM Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
Following the previous discussion [1] and the gathered support, here's a proposal for the user switching criterion. I believe we should put it into the Final milestone [2].
User switching User switching must work using the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops in their default configuration. What is user switching? User switching is a process of changing the currently presented desktop session between concurrent sessions of two or more different users. The user sessions keep running in the background, and users can switch between them repeatedly without losing any running application state. For the purpose of this criterion, user switching doesn't include switching between different sessions of the *same* user. Work? The switching mechanism must correctly attempt the requested operation. If the operation doesn't work on a subset of graphical drivers, the release blocking decision should be based on the number of affected users, the problem severity and available workarounds (as is our [standard procedure](Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements)[3]).The "in their default configuration" part is there to cover only cases where the system hasn't been modified in a substantial (and relevant) way. This will exclude cases where people e.g. install several desktop environments, replace their DM for a different one, tweak systemd settings, or install a non-default graphics driver.
In the last paragraph I explicitly pointed out that we'll use our usual approach of judging the impact if the issue only affects certain configurations. I hope that alleviates some hardware-related concerns.
Note: I considered the option to also include user switching in text-only environments (simultaneous user login on different VTs, as is common on Server), but it's not completely the same. I concluded it's better to have a separate and tailored criterion for it, if there's interest.
Please comment, thank you.
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test%40lists.fedoraproject.org...
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.or...
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org/th... https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/139 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirem...
I didn't receive much feedback so far. But since there was enough supportive feedback in our preliminary discussions, I take it as an agreement with the current criterion phrasing :-) I'll wait a few more days for more feedback, and if no one objects, I'll make the criterion live.
On 5/12/20 1:19 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:51 PM Kamil Paral <kparal@redhat.com mailto:kparal@redhat.com> wrote:
[snip]
Work? The switching mechanism must correctly attempt the requested operation. If the operation doesn't work on a subset of graphical drivers, the release blocking decision should be based on the number of affected users, the problem severity and available workarounds (as is our [standard procedure](Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements)[3]).
[snip]
I didn't receive much feedback so far. But since there was enough supportive feedback in our preliminary discussions, I take it as an agreement with the current criterion phrasing :-) I'll wait a few more days for more feedback, and if no one objects, I'll make the criterion live.
I think the snipped section should read more definitively, maybe:
"The switching mechanism must correctly perform the requested operation. If the operation does not succeed on a subset of graphical drivers, the release blocking decision should be based on the number of affected users, the problem severity, and available workarounds (as is our [standard procedure (Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements)[3])."
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:58 PM Brandon Nielsen nielsenb@jetfuse.net wrote:
On 5/12/20 1:19 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:51 PM Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
Work?
The switching mechanism must correctly attempt the requested operation. If the operation doesn't work on a subset of graphical drivers, the release blocking decision should be based on the number of affected users, the problem severity and available workarounds (as is our [standard procedure](Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements)[3]).
[snip]
I didn't receive much feedback so far. But since there was enough supportive feedback in our preliminary discussions, I take it as an agreement with the current criterion phrasing :-) I'll wait a few more days for more feedback, and if no one objects, I'll make the criterion live.
I think the snipped section should read more definitively, maybe:
"The switching mechanism must correctly perform the requested operation. If the operation does not succeed on a subset of graphical drivers, the release blocking decision should be based on the number of affected users, the problem severity, and available workarounds (as is our [standard procedure (Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements)[3])."
Thanks. "Succeed" sounds better than "work" in the second sentence. As for "attempt" vs "perform" - just to be sure, have you seen my response to Lukas Ruzicka where I was talking about it? Do you still think the wording should be stronger after seeing those other examples I listed?
-
Adam Williamson -
Brandon Nielsen -
Kamil Paral -
Patrick O'Callaghan