FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Desktop

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-18-2011, 04:29 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Update notification period change

Hey, folks. So, just wanted to kick off a discussion regarding this bug:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688305

The default update notification period has been changed for GNOME in F15
from 1 day to 1 week (security updates still get notifications
immediately). This is a change that's come from upstream, the GNOME
design team, who consider it a UI design issue. QA and FPL think this is
at least partly a distro policy issue as well as / more than a UI design
issue, and think we should consider whether we actually want to make
this change for Fedora, and if so whether we should have a different
update period for the pre-release cycle. QA certainly feels that 1 day
is more appropriate than 1 week during pre-release time.

We chatted a bit about this during the blocker review meeting today, but
all agreed this would be a more appropriate venue for discussion, so I
wanted to kick off a thread. Thoughts?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 03-18-2011, 05:50 PM
Michel Alexandre Salim
 
Default Update notification period change

On 03/18/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks. So, just wanted to kick off a discussion regarding this bug:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688305
>
> The default update notification period has been changed for GNOME in F15
> from 1 day to 1 week (security updates still get notifications
> immediately). This is a change that's come from upstream, the GNOME
> design team, who consider it a UI design issue. QA and FPL think this is
> at least partly a distro policy issue as well as / more than a UI design
> issue, and think we should consider whether we actually want to make
> this change for Fedora, and if so whether we should have a different
> update period for the pre-release cycle. QA certainly feels that 1 day
> is more appropriate than 1 week during pre-release time.
>
Should we tie this with the Bodhi package acceptance criteria? e.g. on
stable releases, maintainers have to wait a week before packages can be
moved to the next stage, while in F-15 it's 3 days.

Then again, important fixes often get karma-promoted, and maybe we don't
want to make testers wait for the entire duration. But they can always
manually check for updates.

Regards,

--
Michel Alexandre Salim

() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 03-19-2011, 12:39 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Update notification period change

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:50:29PM +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On 03/18/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey, folks. So, just wanted to kick off a discussion regarding this bug:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688305
> >
> > The default update notification period has been changed for GNOME in F15
> > from 1 day to 1 week (security updates still get notifications
> > immediately). This is a change that's come from upstream, the GNOME
> > design team, who consider it a UI design issue. QA and FPL think this is
> > at least partly a distro policy issue as well as / more than a UI design
> > issue, and think we should consider whether we actually want to make
> > this change for Fedora, and if so whether we should have a different
> > update period for the pre-release cycle. QA certainly feels that 1 day
> > is more appropriate than 1 week during pre-release time.
> >
> Should we tie this with the Bodhi package acceptance criteria? e.g. on
> stable releases, maintainers have to wait a week before packages can be
> moved to the next stage, while in F-15 it's 3 days.
>
> Then again, important fixes often get karma-promoted, and maybe we don't
> want to make testers wait for the entire duration. But they can always
> manually check for updates.

The Bodhi time limit seems orthogonal to me, since different testing
packages are going to be available throughout any given 3-day cycle.

Altering this setting during the pre-release phase seems reasonable,
similar to how we turn on debugging stuff in the kernel. I don't see
why this is a big policy discussion, it's simply something to make
testing easier during a pre-release. Could this setting be twiddled
with a schema setting in the fedora-release package, so pre-releases
would be a little chattier about updates up until the RC?

%if %{release} < 1
gsettings do-something-magical-to-the-system-installed-schema
%endif

I don't think we should be reversing the GNOME upstream setting beyond
the pre-release stage, i.e. for GA. This setting should have minimal
impact beyond casual users, since people doing development, QA,
packaging, and other contribution (1) will find it simple to change
their personal setting (or may already have done so); and (2) run yum
often enough on their own that the PackageKit refresh module will make
the change irrelevant to them anyway (right?).

Casual users will be affected in that their box won't be as chatty
about non-critical updates. A simple statement should be included in
the Release Notes about the change.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Red Hat Summit/JBossWorld -- Register now! http://.theredhatsummit.com
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:23 PM
James Laska
 
Default Update notification period change

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks. So, just wanted to kick off a discussion regarding this bug:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688305
>
> The default update notification period has been changed for GNOME in F15
> from 1 day to 1 week (security updates still get notifications
> immediately). This is a change that's come from upstream, the GNOME
> design team, who consider it a UI design issue. QA and FPL think this is
> at least partly a distro policy issue as well as / more than a UI design
> issue, and think we should consider whether we actually want to make
> this change for Fedora, and if so whether we should have a different
> update period for the pre-release cycle. QA certainly feels that 1 day
> is more appropriate than 1 week during pre-release time.
>
> We chatted a bit about this during the blocker review meeting today, but
> all agreed this would be a more appropriate venue for discussion, so I
> wanted to kick off a thread. Thoughts?

Have there been any decisions on this topic?

Thanks,
James


--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 04-06-2011, 08:30 AM
Chuck Anderson
 
Default Update notification period change

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:39:26AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:50:29PM +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > On 03/18/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hey, folks. So, just wanted to kick off a discussion regarding this bug:
> > >
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688305
> > >
> > > The default update notification period has been changed for GNOME in F15
> > > from 1 day to 1 week (security updates still get notifications
> > > immediately). This is a change that's come from upstream, the GNOME
> > > design team, who consider it a UI design issue. QA and FPL think this is
> > > at least partly a distro policy issue as well as / more than a UI design
> > > issue, and think we should consider whether we actually want to make
> > > this change for Fedora, and if so whether we should have a different
> > > update period for the pre-release cycle. QA certainly feels that 1 day
> > > is more appropriate than 1 week during pre-release time.

I agree. How else can this be tested effectively in a timely manner so
we know for sure that this works properly?

> > Should we tie this with the Bodhi package acceptance criteria? e.g. on
> > stable releases, maintainers have to wait a week before packages can be
> > moved to the next stage, while in F-15 it's 3 days.
> >
> > Then again, important fixes often get karma-promoted, and maybe we don't
> > want to make testers wait for the entire duration. But they can always
> > manually check for updates.
>
> The Bodhi time limit seems orthogonal to me, since different testing
> packages are going to be available throughout any given 3-day cycle.
>
> Altering this setting during the pre-release phase seems reasonable,
> similar to how we turn on debugging stuff in the kernel. I don't see
> why this is a big policy discussion, it's simply something to make
> testing easier during a pre-release. Could this setting be twiddled
> with a schema setting in the fedora-release package, so pre-releases
> would be a little chattier about updates up until the RC?
>
> %if %{release} < 1
> gsettings do-something-magical-to-the-system-installed-schema
> %endif

I thought updates notification was broken and failed the QA Test Case
because it took so long to happen:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693251

> I don't think we should be reversing the GNOME upstream setting beyond
> the pre-release stage, i.e. for GA. This setting should have minimal
> impact beyond casual users, since people doing development, QA,
> packaging, and other contribution (1) will find it simple to change
> their personal setting (or may already have done so); and (2) run yum
> often enough on their own that the PackageKit refresh module will make
> the change irrelevant to them anyway (right?).

I would argue that updates-testing should give more frequent
notification, or bodhi acceptance criteria should be lengthened to
accomodate the less frequent notification.

> Casual users will be affected in that their box won't be as chatty
> about non-critical updates. A simple statement should be included in
> the Release Notes about the change.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 04-06-2011, 03:47 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Update notification period change

On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 10:51 +0000, "Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson" wrote:

> A)
> Reporters should use yum from cli to update during the development
> cycle of the release regardless of *DE and application settings
> preferably run it manually on daily bases.

Actually, we need at least some people to use PackageKit some of the
time, or we don't notice when PackageKit is broken. And we can't expect
_everyone_ running pre-releases to know this.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 04-06-2011, 08:08 PM
Richard Hughes
 
Default Update notification period change

2011/4/6 "Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson" <johannbg@gmail.com>:
> Having test cases that involves basically fooling packagekit to think
> that x supported configuration time period has passed and it should
> check for updates.

You can just change the timestamp stored in gsettings.

Richard.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:43 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Update notification period change

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2011/4/6 "Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson" <johannbg@gmail.com>:
> > Having test cases that involves basically fooling packagekit to think
> > that x supported configuration time period has passed and it should
> > check for updates.
>
> You can just change the timestamp stored in gsettings.

I believe this is...

Schema: org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.updates
Key: last-updates-notification
Type: uint64

for those who didn't know where to find it already.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Red Hat Summit/JBossWorld -- Register now! http://.theredhatsummit.com
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org