On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 19:14 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 16:29 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It sounds like gedit is the one change in
> 3.12 that might catch people by surprise, so I think it's worth
> considering making that part of 3.12 'opt-in' - by putting it in a
> - if we can achieve that cleanly.
It'll be the most user-visible, but there are lots of other applications
that will feature significant changes. gitg, several games, File Roller,
and GNOME Software all come to mind.
Given the user audience of gitg I wouldn't be _too_ worried about it
(and I think it's pretty inarguable that the new version is massively
better, right?). File-roller has basically just been converted to the
new style of menus, right? We already have a mix between converted and
not-converted apps in F20, and have for several releases, so I wouldn't
_expect_ one app being converted as part of an update to throw anyone
for a huge loop. I think Software is probably in the same bucket as
gitg, right, I don't think any of the changes are particularly
controversial/surprising, they just make things *better*, right? Still,
Software would be a component we should test very thoroughly and
carefully if we're going to go for a version bump.
All apps will notice changes from the GTK+ and Adwaita upgrade. A
amount (probably a majority) of the complaints about the new gedit were
actually only about the design of the tabs (which I think look
excellent, but there's no denying they're very unpopular). Well, that
wasn't a gedit change: it's going to happen during this update even if
you hold gedit at 3.10.
I really do want to see this update happen: I think Fedora users will
appreciate it, and I think it's justified by the exceptional change to
the normal release schedule. But it'd be silly to pretend there won't be
significant UI changes all over the place.
Thanks for highlighting the issues. I think the way forward would be to
take a proposal to FESCo - a really *good faith* proposal, highlighting
all the user-visible changes to to experience that it would involve, and
including a justification / consideration of the issues with changing
the user experience in unexpected ways with updates to stable releases -
and see where that goes. If FESCo signs off on the idea, we can take a
look at whatever restrictions/caveats they impose, and then deal with
the practical implementation questions: how should we do it, what if
anything should be hold back, if we hold anything back should we have it
optionally available in a COPR, how should we test it, and what should
the 'release criteria' be...
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net