On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 08:52 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > On 02/16/2011 12:25 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 21:45 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > >> On 02/15/2011 09:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 23:30 +0100, MichaÅ Piotrowski wrote: > >>>> <snip> > >>>> that lettel "Å" caused it. Second issue - I don't have a "restart" > >>> > >>> We definitely need reports on such 'odd' (i.e. not US ASCII...) > >>> character set issues, i18n issues etc - can you double-check it and file > >>> the issue if it's reproducible? Thanks. > >>> > >>>> option in Gnome menu. > >>> > >>> That is a, ahem, policy decision. > >> > >> Hi, Adam, > >> > >> Could you say some more about the policy decision or point to a msg or > >> whatever. Need to understand what is going on. > > > > It was discussed during the Test Day. I don't have a web reference for > > this exact issue, but the position of the design team is that they think > > the only common use case for rebooting is to boot into a different > > operating system in a multi-boot configuration, and they want to handle > > that as a special case somehow (a direct 'reboot to Windows' option has > > been suggested). They don't believe there are any sufficiently common > > use cases for rebooting other than that one to justify the added > > complexity of providing it as an option. (Desktop team, please correct > > me if I'm representing this wrong). > > Well, I reboot after every kernel update, every time there are numerous > updates from the repos, when debugging and testing changes to gdm, > dracut, systemd, networking, and on-and-on. > > I am somehow now reminded of the early days of software design (I go > back to second gen mainframes) when we sat in a room and designed > software the way we thought it should be and then cursed the users who > complained it wasn't the way they wanted it. Heaven forbid that we even > considered an upfront requirements definition phase that included the > user community. Of course, we blamed users for the additional costs > involved in "correcting" errors late in the projects and after they were > implemented. > > I am optimistic, however, since the Fedora project seems to always, > somehow, make the right, even unpopular, decisions concerning features. > I.e., deferring systemd to F15 late in the F14 cycle. > > I suppose gnome is too far down the path now to consider deferring it to > F16? Is it even possible? Development has been going on for some time now, so it would be a shame for GNOME3 to miss Fedora 15. The desktop team has set the bar in terms of expected functionality and criteria for a successful GNOME3.0 + Fedora 15 release. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome3#Scope QA is positioned well to provide feedback against the goals listed above, by way of bugs and flame-free discussion, around those goals. Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
