Re: Criterion revision proposal: KDE default applications

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 20:06 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 20:30 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 21:12 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > Really?  We don't want to even make sure the apps that we ship by
> > > default in the DVD image starts?  Why are we even bothering to ship
> > > those additional apps then? Include in the DVD image the same set of
> > > apps that we include in the live images (from GNOME and KDE) and
> > > nothing more then.
> > 
> > My $0.02: I'm surprised this change is even being considered. If the
> > application is completely broken, and it is not important enough to be
> > on the live CD, and it is not important enough to fix before the
> > release, then the application should be dropped from the default
> > install: blocker resolved! If it's important enough to remain in the
> > default install, it's also important enough to block the release.
> > 
> > A basic functionality test is, well, basic, and Fedora shouldn't install
> > something by default that's known to be completely broken. It also
> > doesn't make any sense for a DVD installation to secretly result in a
> > lower quality desktop than a live CD installation. (Well, it doesn't
> > really make sense for the DVD installation to include more packages,
> > either, but that's a separate issue.)
> 
> It never turns out to be quite so simple in practice.
> 
> The specific bug here is:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1040922
> 
> it was -1'ed at go/no-go meeting in about five seconds. No-one voted +1
> blocker on it. We are clearly not, as a project, willing to block
> releases on this. Yet it clearly violates the current criterion as
> written. This must be resolved somehow.
> 
> The complicating factors here: the 'application' in question isn't
> really an application so much as it's a convenience wrapper around one
> of the dozens of bits that go to make up kipi-plugins. It's not actually
> totally broken, because if you somehow run it against some image files -
> run it from a command line, or use it to 'open with' some image file or
> other - it works.
> 
> It doesn't do anyone any good for us to write something in our criteria
> that the project is not actually willing to stick to; in practice, this
> criterion is not passing the 'do we slip a week to fix absolutely any
> violation of this criterion' test. We don't. So, we have to do something
> about that.
> 
> Please do post any alternative suggestions that resolve the tension...

BTW, if you haven't done a KDE install from DVD, go do one and look at
the menus. I think there's over 100 things in there. It kinda gives you
a different perspective on whether this criterion is realistic. The
'desktop_menus' test that enforces this criterion is very rarely run,
and even *more* rarely by anyone other than me. If people aren't willing
to sit there clicking on every one of the 100+ items in the KDE menus
often enough that we catch this kind of bug early enough to do something
about it, we cannot maintain the criterion; we can't retain criteria we
don't have the resources to police properly.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora KDE]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat 9]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux