REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

Tomas Mraz tmraz at redhat.com
Wed Sep 22 13:34:28 UTC 2010


On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 12:48 +0200, drago01 wrote: 
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 15:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> Greetings.
> >>
> >> I'd like to ask for feedback and helping cleaning up an updates policy
> >> draft page:
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
> >>
> >> How can we clarify the language or the layout of the page to be more
> >> clear? Are there places that it could be more like the existing package
> >> update howto page? Could we be more detailed about what bodhi enforces
> >> and whats just good practice?
> >>
> >> Are there other exceptions cases that could be covered that you can
> >> think of?
> >>
> >> NOTE that this is a draft. I'd like constructive feedback.
> >> If we can get something that looks ok by next week, FESCo would like to
> >> approve this and put it in place.
> >>
> >> Please do try and keep technical and constructive in replies, pretty
> >> please? With a cherry on top?
> >
> > - Avoid changing the user experence if at all possible. - this is too
> > strong condition. In some cases fixing a bug might inevitable change the
> > user experience and in some cases for example the user experience might
> > be just severally improved with the new release. So IMO this should be
> > reworded with much less strong wording such as 'Avoid major changes and
> > worsening the user experience if at all possible.'
> 
> Define "worsening" being different by itself is "worsening" for a lot of people.
It's clear that this cannot be a hard rule if we do not want to make
Fedora ultra-conservative distribution. There are much better choices
for ultra-conservative users.

> > This example is IMO wrong:
> > - WebKit requires an update to solve a security problem. This requires
> > updating Midori to a version with some minor menu layout changes. This
> > would be a judgement call based on how intrusive the changes are
> > (removing the File menu would be rude, but moving the plugin
> > configuration menu item would be acceptable).
> > In this case even major changes in user experience are justified -
> > knowingly insecure web browser just should not be used.
> 
> That isn't any different than the firefox example on the page i.e
> already covered.
Yes, and that's the reason the example is wrong and it should be
removed.

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb



More information about the devel mailing list