Hey, folks. So discussion around
rather indicates that
our existing release criteria relating to artwork are problematic. I
talked to the design team on IRC this morning, looking at the criteria
in their initial context (see
around 16:25 and
if you're interested), and how artwork requirements have changed since
The current criteria are:
Alpha - "The default Fedora artwork must either refer to the current
Fedora release under development (Fedora 18), or reference an interim
release milestone (e.g. Alpha or Beta). If a release version number is
used, it must match the current Fedora release under development. This
includes artwork used in the installer, graphical bootloader menu,
firstboot, graphical boot, graphical login and desktop background."
Final - "The proposed final Fedora artwork must be included and enabled
by default for the installer, graphical boot, firstboot, graphical login
and desktop background. All Fedora artwork must be consistent with the
proposed final theme, and if any artwork contains a graphical version
number, the version number used must match the Fedora release number.
Generic release artwork (e.g. Alpha, Beta, Development) must not be used
for the final release"
There are several problems with these, now:
1) The use of 'refer to' is somewhat ambiguous and creates confusion -
I'd been reading it as meaning 'explicitly specify', but the artwork
team have been reading it as meaning 'specify or reference in some way'
(so they consider the desktop backgrounds as 'referring to' specific
releases by association with their codenames, even though the
backgrounds don't state a version number).
2) They're probably over-strict for their real intent. The intent of
the Alpha criterion, especially, is really only that no-one should
mistake an Alpha release for the previous stable release or anything
like that. It's about avoiding confusion.
3) The space for artwork in current Fedora is much more limited than it
was when we wrote those criteria. Lots of the things that were
previously explicitly themed per release now have either generic artwork
or no 'artwork' to speak of at all. anaconda doesn't really have
'artwork' any more. The bootsplash has been the Fedora logo on a blue
blackground for several releases. firstboot is not themed any more, it's
just solid grey and blue with the Fedora logo. From Fedora 18 onwards,
even gdm will not be themed any more, it will not feature a background
image. We're not sure of the status of kdm, but design team considers
KDE SIG responsible for that, it's not part of the 'official' artwork
stuff. So basically, we're down to bootloaders and the desktop
background, when it comes to 'artwork'.
With all those factors in mind, here's what we boiled it down to. I
propose we replace the Alpha criterion with this one:
* The default desktop background must be different from that of the two
previous stable releases
and add a new Alpha criterion:
* Any component which prominently identifies a Fedora release version
number or phase (Alpha, Beta, Final) must do so correctly
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.
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
'all graphical bootloaders' is phrased that way because we use multiple
bootloaders - grub2 for installed systems and EFI boots of installer
discs, syslinux for BIOS boots of installer discs - and sometimes these
aren't graphical, we have to be allowed to not include *any* artwork in
a bootloader if that seems necessary/unavoidable. We can drop the
'version number must match' sentence entirely, if we adopt the proposed
new Alpha criterion which would subsume it.
We would also have to modify some test cases slightly, the changes just
follow from the above.
, the result
"If the artwork used at the bootloader screen, during graphical boot, on
the login manager, or the desktop background references a release number
and/or pre-release phase (Alpha, Beta etc), it must be the current
number and/or phase for the release or pre-release under test" would be
changed to "If the bootloader screen, graphical bootsplash, login
manager, desktop background or any other prominent part of the start
process references a release number and/or pre-release phase (Alpha,
Beta etc), it must be the current number and/or phase for the release or
pre-release under test". Similarly, the phrase "the artwork used in the
login manager and on the default desktop (particularly the background)
must be the correct and current artwork" proposed for the release in
question by the design team" would be changed to "the artwork used on
the default desktop (particularly the background) must be the correct
and current artwork".
expected result relating to artwork would simply be removed.
"used in the boot menu and installer" would be changed to just "used in
the boot menu". "If a release version number is used" could be clarified
to "If the boot menu and/or installer specify a release version number".
Sorry for the essay, hope it all makes sense! Comments, suggestions,
improvements, complaints welcome.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora