On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com>wrote:
* Any component which prominently identifies a Fedora release
version
number or phase (Alpha, Beta, Final) must do so correctly
With the changes in anaconda UI, this criteria makes alot of sense to
prevent confusion regarding version number / phase, anaconda being one of
the first things a user gets to see. Also, this criteria would attempt to
prevent inconsistencies w.r.t. version number shown at different places.
The first of these might be a bit over-clever - we could just say "must be
different from any previous release", but, perhaps over-thinking things, I
wondered if maybe at some point in the future we'll want to use a 'retro'
wallpaper for some reason, revive the Fedora Core 1 artwork or something.
Which, with enough of a time gap, obviously wouldn't create any confusion.
So I tried to allow for the possibility.
A dash of history / nostalgia .. sounds great !!
The second one, I think, frames the confusion problem better: it's not
only artwork that can create confusion. The new anaconda UI identifies the
Fedora version and phase with a text string - that's not 'artwork', but if
it's wrong, it could certainly confuse things. plymouth in text mode also
specifies the Fedora release. There are probably others I'm not thinking of
right now. I don't see why the 'confusion' criterion shouldn't cover
_anything_ that could plausibly cause confusion, there's no reason to
restrict it to artwork. The 'prominently' weasel-word gives us an out to
avoid slipping the release just because it's wrong in some obscure text
file somewhere that no-one ever reads.
I propose we modify the Final criterion a bit, just to update it for the
more restricted modern artwork era:
* The proposed final Fedora artwork must be included and enabled by
default for all graphical bootloaders and the desktop background. All
Fedora artwork must be consistent with the proposed final theme
+1 for the modification.
--
Regards,
Pratyush Sahay