on Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:41:15AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Proposed changes: > > Under Target Audience, General, after "Desktop apps should be > sufficient to make this system the user's only computer," insert a new > paragraph: "Developers are not expected to be familiar with the > terminal. Users should not be required to use the terminal for > essential tasks, including software development." > > Under Target Audience, Other users, replace the first sentence with > "While our focus is on creating a top-class developer workstation, our > developer focus will not compromise the aforementioned goal to be a > polished and user friendly system that can appeal to a wide general > audience." Replace the final sentence with "We will welcome feedback > and requests from all our users and will consider accommodating it when > possible." > > Under Develop application guidelines and designs, replace the entire > section with "Fedora Workstation follows the GNOME Human Interface > Guidelines. These guidelines are mandatory for applications that are > installed by default. Third-party software developers are encouraged to > follow them too." > > Under Delivery Mechanism, replace the final sentence with "The product > will be offered for installation via either live or netinstall ISO > images." > > Under Packaging for the Workstation", remove the sentence "No software > will be blocked from being packaged as long as it doesn't break any > part of the core workstation system upon install," or remove the > packaging committee that enforces our quality standards. :) I edited these changes (with slight tweaks here and there) into the PRD. I didn't see any objections here or other suggestions. https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Workstation%2FWorkstation_PRD&action=historysubmit&diff=415130&oldid=398332 > Comments on other sections: > > Robust Upgrades: "Upgrading the system multiple times through the > upgrade process should give a result that is the same as an original > install of Fedora Workstation. Upgrade should be a safe and process > that never leaves the system needing manual intervention." We violated > this rule quite badly for the upgrade from F21 to F22. For example, the > default font on ttys is different for fresh installs than for upgrades, > and fresh installs use xorg-x11-drv-libinput whereas upgrades do not. I > still agree with Owen that this is a desirable goal, so maybe we can > keep it as-is and just accept that we haven't made progress on it yet. > > Better upgrade/rollback control: We haven't really made progress on > this, either. For upgrade, not necessarily rollback, there is some work underway AIUI to combine with Software/PackageKit. See devel@. > I want to add a section specifying that regular updates should follow > similar QA policies as releases (we can clump the updates together into > monthly updates packs), but I guess that might be controversial. It would be if the specification doesn't come attached to an idea for finding testing cycles, since it's a significant additional QA effort. > I'm not sure about the Work Model section. It doesn't seem to > accurately reflect how we operate. > > "The working group will also regularly meet with a designated > representative of Red Hat to discuss how Red Hats product and > development plans will affect the Fedora product development and > resource allocation." I guess we don't need to remove this per se, > since Christian kind of fills that role, but it also doesn't seem to > accurately reflect how we operate. We talked about this in the meeting, IIRC. Christian does actually meet with folks this way. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
