+1, I agree with proposed text. On 2/28/19 10:56 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I just realized I only responded to Zdenek the other day. Re-sending > my response now. > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> comments are in the text: >> >> On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this. >>>>> >>>>> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta >>>>> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this >>>>> comes off more favorable: >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+: >>>>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA. >>>>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview >>>>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in >>>>> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".) >>>> Does the criterion pply strictly to the printing of text and line >>>> art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the >>>> latter: >>>> >>>> ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; or >>>> ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working" >>>> >>>> Major defined as any of: >>>> obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%) >>>> color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes >>>> white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc) >>>> tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two >>>> or more test images >>>> >>>> With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level, >>>> bugs as blockers. >>>> >>> I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a >>> blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line >>> on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can >>> just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this. >> I agree with Stephen - such topics can be really subjective and even the >> fault does not have to be on Fedora side (f.e. when you catch the file >> which goes to the printer, you look into it and it looks fine, but >> output paper has 'slightly' different colors, scale etc... - so there >> can be issues in the printer itself). >>>> Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the >>>> initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one >>>> application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic >>>> functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default >>>> installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox >>>> and evince? >>>> >>> How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and >>> whichever basic text editor comes with it. >> IMHO it is not correct blocker criteria for printing as itself, but it >> is more like blocker for these applications. AFAIK blocker is the issue, >> which can not be worked around - if the file is printable by CUPS CLI >> commands 'lp'/'lpr', but not from a app, IMHO it is not blocker for >> printing. >> >> IMO issues like 'not being able to print from X application' should be >> blocking/release criteria for some common/widely used apps like >> Firefox/evince/libreoffice, not for printing itself. (If the issue would >> be actually connected to CUPS, I'll cooperate with them to fix the issue). >> > Well, we don't have to be that specific in the release criteria, > honestly. We're talking about blocker criteria specifically for > blocking desktops, so in my opinion it's okay to have "test page" and > "basic text editor" as the stand-ins for this. (This is similar to how > we have "package manager must be able to download and apply updates" > as a stand-in for "the network must not be totally broken".) > > I'd be fine if we wanted to add a corollary that either of these are > not blockers if it can be shown that other applications can print > successfully. I just wanted to suggest those as the basic litmus test. > >>>> Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several >>>> test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our >>>> purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling >>>> and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests >>>> various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering. >>>> Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't >>>> gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as >>>> a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out >>>> entire test suites): >>>> https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files >> Chris, would you mind elaborating more on the topic of these test files >> and tests from these sources? Martin (mosvald in CC) currently does only >> comparing sample file and output file in ghostscript and I'm on my way >> to do it the similar way in CUPS and printer driver packages. >> >> Do they have special tests available to look into them? I saw mostly >> only pdf file in ECI downloads, I did not see anything in GWG and only >> docx or xlsx files in libreoffice tests. >> > <snip> > > I'm going to suggest that going into this level of detail on how to > write the tests is mostly going to cloud the issue. I think we first > want to make sure we agree that the basics of the proposal are sound. > I'm perfectly happy to delegate the specifics of how to verify the > functionality to the subject matter experts. > > I'll update the proposal again with some of the feedback: > > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA. > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that non-ridiculous > differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working". In > general, we'll apply the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" principle here > when deciding whether a print glitch is truly blocking.) > > and this to Final for Fedora 30+: > * Printing must work (as defined above) on at least one printer using > each of the following drivers: > - The built-in print-to-PDF driver > - The generic IPP driver > * For each blocking desktop, it must be possible to print: > - A test page from the desktop environment's built-in "test page" > feature, if such a feature exists. > - A simple text document of at least 100 words (lorem ipsum) from > the standard basic text editor accompanying that desktop. > > This does not mean that all printers need to function properly that > use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we > know that printing as a whole is unbroken). We won't specify any > particular hardware makes or models that must work. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Zdenek Dohnal Associate Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
