----- Original Message ----- > On 18 December 2014 at 09:46, Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > To be honest, the "slowly evolving" AppData requirements/changes have > > also grated me the wrong way. > > Okay, so that's probably something we need to do something about. > Would more frequent blogging help or hinder this? It's not the blogging. Blogging more often that the standards were upped and that next month's Fedora release won't accept your old AppData is fine. Blogging every month saying "we changed this little thing" is more the problem. > > I get confused by the upstream vs. Fedora requirements, > > They are the same thing, no? You tell me ;) > > I get confused by the F21 vs. F22 requirements. > > So, at the moment the only way that F22 and F21 differ is that F22 > requires a minimum icon size of 48px, and f21 requires 32px. Most > actively maintained packages (especially the kind of ones you > maintain) easily meet this requirement. Would a generated HTML page > of: > > pkgname,fasname,application-id,green/red for F21, green/red for F22? > > be a useful thing to do? That would be useful indeed, as long as it doesn't require too much work. > > I get annoyed that I can't easily test changes and see what it will look > > like > > Doesn't dumping the updated AppData file in /usr/share/appdata work? I don't know. Does it? :) I'd probably know more about testing if there wasn't that procrastination kicking in every time I see a necessary change. Good job so far on the cat herding though :) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
