Fedora.next PRD refresh

Paul W. Frields stickster at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 21:05:32 UTC 2015

on Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:41:15AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> 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
> possible."
> 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
> images."
> 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. :)

I edited these changes (with slight tweaks here and there) into the
PRD.  I didn't see any objections here or other suggestions.


> 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.

For upgrade, not necessarily rollback, there is some work underway
AIUI to combine with Software/PackageKit.  See devel at .

> 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.

It would be if the specification doesn't come attached to an idea for
finding testing cycles, since it's a significant additional QA effort.

> 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.

We talked about this in the meeting, IIRC.  Christian does actually
meet with folks this way.

Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com

More information about the desktop mailing list