On 02/16/2011 10:25 AM, James Laska wrote: > 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 > Not a flame. Just frustration. At least some discussion is now underway and folks are expressing opinions. I am now seeing links to pages that I missed so far during Gnome 3 development. I am sure they will be useful and I am sure things will work out, they always do. Reminds me of the marketing folks during my business life: "Tell them three times what you want them to know. Then keep telling them until they buy." Of course, your product has to work. :-) -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
