systemd and changes

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:32:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > So, I'm honestly asking: what are the odds that these few things are the
> > only improvements that cause a disruptive change to user interaction? I
> > don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if there are other changes which
> > fit this category.
> My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to quantify
> the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testing which is
> 'long enough' for us to catch all the unknown unknowns. This seems
> impractical, in as much as it doesn't give us any clear criteria to define
> success with.

I guess what I'm getting at is that we need careful end-user release note
documentation at the alpha testing stage showing what's known by the
developers to have a new interface or semantics. Some of that is in the FAQ
(How do I change a runlevel? Turns out, by "isolating" a target which
defines that runlevel.) but some of it is not -- things like "noauto now
means auto" should have been in there. And a FAQ format is not exactly
what's needed.

Writing this isn't necessarily Lennart's job. But someone needs to do it,
and if it's there sooner rather than later, it'll be a better document and
issues with design and intent can be addressed.


-- 
Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org>
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences