On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:39:26AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:50:29PM +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > On 03/18/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Hey, folks. So, just wanted to kick off a discussion regarding this bug: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688305 > > > > > > The default update notification period has been changed for GNOME in F15 > > > from 1 day to 1 week (security updates still get notifications > > > immediately). This is a change that's come from upstream, the GNOME > > > design team, who consider it a UI design issue. QA and FPL think this is > > > at least partly a distro policy issue as well as / more than a UI design > > > issue, and think we should consider whether we actually want to make > > > this change for Fedora, and if so whether we should have a different > > > update period for the pre-release cycle. QA certainly feels that 1 day > > > is more appropriate than 1 week during pre-release time. I agree. How else can this be tested effectively in a timely manner so we know for sure that this works properly? > > Should we tie this with the Bodhi package acceptance criteria? e.g. on > > stable releases, maintainers have to wait a week before packages can be > > moved to the next stage, while in F-15 it's 3 days. > > > > Then again, important fixes often get karma-promoted, and maybe we don't > > want to make testers wait for the entire duration. But they can always > > manually check for updates. > > The Bodhi time limit seems orthogonal to me, since different testing > packages are going to be available throughout any given 3-day cycle. > > Altering this setting during the pre-release phase seems reasonable, > similar to how we turn on debugging stuff in the kernel. I don't see > why this is a big policy discussion, it's simply something to make > testing easier during a pre-release. Could this setting be twiddled > with a schema setting in the fedora-release package, so pre-releases > would be a little chattier about updates up until the RC? > > %if %{release} < 1 > gsettings do-something-magical-to-the-system-installed-schema > %endif I thought updates notification was broken and failed the QA Test Case because it took so long to happen: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693251 > I don't think we should be reversing the GNOME upstream setting beyond > the pre-release stage, i.e. for GA. This setting should have minimal > impact beyond casual users, since people doing development, QA, > packaging, and other contribution (1) will find it simple to change > their personal setting (or may already have done so); and (2) run yum > often enough on their own that the PackageKit refresh module will make > the change irrelevant to them anyway (right?). I would argue that updates-testing should give more frequent notification, or bodhi acceptance criteria should be lengthened to accomodate the less frequent notification. > Casual users will be affected in that their box won't be as chatty > about non-critical updates. A simple statement should be included in > the Release Notes about the change. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
