[Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Alpha TC2 Available Now!
Clyde E. Kunkel
clydekunkel7734 at cox.net
Wed Feb 16 15:43:07 UTC 2011
On 02/16/2011 10:25 AM, James Laska wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>> 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
>> 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.
Not a flame. Just frustration. At least some discussion is now
underway and folks are expressing opinions.
I am now seeing links to pages that I missed so far during Gnome 3
development. I am sure they will be useful and I am sure things will
work out, they always do.
Reminds me of the marketing folks during my business life: "Tell them
three times what you want them to know. Then keep telling them until
they buy." Of course, your product has to work. :-)
More information about the test