[Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Alpha TC2 Available Now!

James Laska jlaska at redhat.com
Wed Feb 16 14:25:17 UTC 2011

On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 08:52 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 12:25 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 21:45 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> >> On 02/15/2011 09:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 23:30 +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>> that lettel "ł" caused it. Second issue - I don't have a "restart"
> >>>
> >>> We definitely need reports on such 'odd' (i.e. not US ASCII...)
> >>> character set issues, i18n issues etc - can you double-check it and file
> >>> the issue if it's reproducible? Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>> option in Gnome menu.
> >>>
> >>> That is a, ahem, policy decision.
> >>
> >> Hi, Adam,
> >>
> >> Could you say some more about the policy decision or point to a msg or
> >> whatever.  Need to understand what is going on.
> >
> > It was discussed during the Test Day. I don't have a web reference for
> > this exact issue, but the position of the design team is that they think
> > the only common use case for rebooting is to boot into a different
> > operating system in a multi-boot configuration, and they want to handle
> > that as a special case somehow (a direct 'reboot to Windows' option has
> > been suggested). They don't believe there are any sufficiently common
> > use cases for rebooting other than that one to justify the added
> > complexity of providing it as an option. (Desktop team, please correct
> > me if I'm representing this wrong).
> Well, I reboot after every kernel update, every time there are numerous 
> updates from the repos, when debugging and testing changes to gdm, 
> dracut, systemd, networking, and on-and-on.
> I am somehow now reminded of the early days of software design (I go 
> back to second gen mainframes) when we sat in a room and designed 
> software the way we thought it should be and then cursed the users who 
> complained it wasn't the way they wanted it.  Heaven forbid that we even 
> considered an upfront requirements definition phase that included the 
> user community.  Of course, we blamed users for the additional costs 
> involved in "correcting" errors late in the projects and after they were 
> implemented.
> I am optimistic, however, since the Fedora project seems to always, 
> somehow, make the right, even unpopular, decisions concerning features. 
> I.e., deferring systemd to F15 late in the F14 cycle.
> I suppose gnome is too far down the path now to consider deferring it to 
> F16?  Is it even possible?

Development has been going on for some time now, so it would be a shame
for GNOME3 to miss Fedora 15.  The desktop team has set the bar in terms
of expected functionality and criteria for a successful GNOME3.0 +
Fedora 15 release.


QA is positioned well to provide feedback against the goals listed
above, by way of bugs and flame-free discussion, around those goals.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110216/f1dbcb9d/attachment.bin 

More information about the test mailing list