On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 11:43 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > 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. Doh, sorry Clyde. I didn't take your mail that way, or mean to imply it was. Just doing my best to encourage positive discussion on the topic! :) > 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. :-) I recall those same words in the context of public speaking. So true :) 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
