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, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > <snip> > that lettel "ł" 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