On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:32:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > So, I'm honestly asking: what are the odds that these few things are the > > only improvements that cause a disruptive change to user interaction? I > > don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if there are other changes which > > fit this category. > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to quantify > the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testing which is > 'long enough' for us to catch all the unknown unknowns. This seems > impractical, in as much as it doesn't give us any clear criteria to define > success with. I guess what I'm getting at is that we need careful end-user release note documentation at the alpha testing stage showing what's known by the developers to have a new interface or semantics. Some of that is in the FAQ (How do I change a runlevel? Turns out, by "isolating" a target which defines that runlevel.) but some of it is not -- things like "noauto now means auto" should have been in there. And a FAQ format is not exactly what's needed. Writing this isn't necessarily Lennart's job. But someone needs to do it, and if it's there sooner rather than later, it'll be a better document and issues with design and intent can be addressed. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
