Fedora.next PRD refresh

Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro at gnome.org
Thu Jun 4 14:41:15 UTC 2015

Proposed changes:

Under Target Audience, General, after "Desktop apps should be
sufficient to make this system the user's only computer," insert a new
paragraph: "Developers are not expected to be familiar with the
terminal. Users should not be required to use the terminal for
essential tasks, including software development."

Under Target Audience, Other users, replace the first sentence with
"While our focus is on creating a top-class developer workstation, our
developer focus will not compromise the aforementioned goal to be a
polished and user friendly system that can appeal to a wide general
audience." Replace the final sentence with "We will welcome feedback
and requests from all our users and will consider accommodating it when

Under Develop application guidelines and designs, replace the entire
section with "Fedora Workstation follows the GNOME Human Interface
Guidelines. These guidelines are mandatory for applications that are
installed by default. Third-party software developers are encouraged to
follow them too."

Under Delivery Mechanism, replace the final sentence with "The product
will be offered for installation via either live or netinstall ISO

Under Packaging for the Workstation", remove the sentence "No software
will be blocked from being packaged as long as it doesn't break any
part of the core workstation system upon install," or remove the
packaging committee that enforces our quality standards. :)

Comments on other sections:

Robust Upgrades: "Upgrading the system multiple times through the
upgrade process should give a result that is the same as an original
install of Fedora Workstation. Upgrade should be a safe and process
that never leaves the system needing manual intervention." We violated
this rule quite badly for the upgrade from F21 to F22. For example, the
default font on ttys is different for fresh installs than for upgrades,
and fresh installs use xorg-x11-drv-libinput whereas upgrades do not. I
still agree with Owen that this is a desirable goal, so maybe we can
keep it as-is and just accept that we haven't made progress on it yet.

Better upgrade/rollback control: We haven't really made progress on
this, either.

I want to add a section specifying that regular updates should follow
similar QA policies as releases (we can clump the updates together into
monthly updates packs), but I guess that might be controversial.

I'm not sure about the Work Model section. It doesn't seem to
accurately reflect how we operate.

"The working group will also regularly meet with a designated
representative of Red Hat to discuss how Red Hats product and
development plans will affect the Fedora product development and
resource allocation." I guess we don't need to remove this per se,
since Christian kind of fills that role, but it also doesn't seem to
accurately reflect how we operate.

More information about the desktop mailing list