Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:00, Frederic Peters fpet...@gnome.org wrote: Jason D. Clinton wrote: Because there's a big difference between an integrated, designed, polished, documented and translated GNOME app and something that happens to use GTK, right? That's the distinction between Featured Apps and everything else in the world. Core is for, well, core OS and desktop functionality that everyone can't do without. The only thing requiring approval today is Platform and Core. It certainly belongs in the apps moduleset where it is now so that it can facilitate easy jhbuilding. There's no approval required for the apps moduleset nor for Feature Apps (which is only a marketing distinction). Thanks for bringing this as that was certainly the plan but (by lack of resources in the marketing team?) it fell down and we got back to square one with the release team somehow handling applications, in this case Boxes. Somehow, because we didn't redefine criterias, in terms of documentation, schedule, all the things we had before. If people wants the release team to handle apps, we should get back to some processes. When did this happen? I admit I've been a bit disconnected for a few months but even if the Featured Apps didn't get updated, it was never intended to be an exhaustive list. In fact, I explicitly stated in the announcement (with blessing from the Release Team) that there was no mechanism by which to apply for featured status and it was to be construed as nothing more than what it was: purely a marketing designation. There were only 8 Featured Apps the 3.0 and 3.2 release (these eight http://www.gnome.org/applications/) *and* we still had an apps moduleset for both releases. So what has changed? I think that there's some confusion here and I'd like to clear it up. As far as I know, everything is just fine: Featured Apps is a marketing function and apps moduleset can include anything to facilitate jhbuilding. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
Jason D. Clinton wrote: When did this happen? I admit I've been a bit disconnected for a few months but even if the Featured Apps didn't get updated, it was never intended to be an exhaustive list. In fact, I explicitly stated in the announcement (with blessing from the Release Team) that there was no mechanism by which to apply for featured status and it was to be construed as nothing more than what it was: purely a marketing designation. There were only 8 Featured Apps the 3.0 and 3.2 release (these eight http://www.gnome.org/applications/) *and* we still had an apps moduleset for both releases. But what's the meaning of the apps moduleset? It is not about featured apps, as you wrote earlier: This list is not jhbuild-maintained because it is a function of marketing, not development. The list of featured applications is maintained on our web properties and has nothing to do with any official module status. -- http://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/commit/?id=12a0bd91 And applications got out of release team scope in the announcement you refer to: Release Team continue to administer the formal new module proposal process for Core (that is, everything which would be considered part of GNOME OS and is currently in the Core moduleset) -- https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-March/msg00045.html But despite that announcement, most of the application module maintainers continued to follow the release schedule, and were part of releases we handled. (as evidenced by http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/apps/) Again, the question, what's the meaning of the apps moduleset? It's been the place for a serie of applications handled by the release team, remnants of the old modulesets, but doesn't it lack some more formal definition? If it's applications released by the GNOME project, shouldn't we get back some release criteria? If it's just to facilitate jhbuilding, what's the difference between the -apps and the -world modulesets? So what has changed? I think that there's some confusion here and I'd like to clear it up. As far as I know, everything is just fine: Featured Apps is a marketing function and apps moduleset can include anything to facilitate jhbuilding. Well, there was the moduleset reorg announcement, but after that we also had 8 months of practice, and they don't quite fit, because in some sense, what has changed? nothing, applications still wanted to be under the GNOME shelter, and the release team kept offering that. We put up a feature proposal period in place, and applications kept being proposed, and that discrepancy is part of this thread, Vincent wrote: I said that I didn't feel Boxes should be tracked as a feature. Fred ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 13:00, Frederic Peters fpet...@gnome.org wrote: But despite that announcement, most of the application module maintainers continued to follow the release schedule, and were part of releases we handled. (as evidenced by http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/apps/ ) Yes, we want that and we get it without having to fight about Vinagre vs. Boxes, for example. GNOME's process is a great set of best practices to follow without having to involve the release team in picking GNOME favorites (eg. The One True Music Player). And because it gives GNOME translation and documentation teams an implicit schedule they can rely on. Want to be part of GNOME? Join are community and you are. Want to be a GNOME App? Follow our practices and you are. Again, the question, what's the meaning of the apps moduleset? It's been the place for a serie of applications handled by the release team, remnants of the old modulesets, but doesn't it lack some more formal definition? It shouldn't be handled by the release team because that gets us in to these threads all over again which was entirely the point of implementing this change. If that's been going on, it really shouldn't be. The i18n coordinators add modules to Damned Lies; the Documentation coordinators (eg. Shawn) track the Mallard work across modules; in the same way, the release team or anyone with git access, really, can and should be encouraged to add their build instructions to the apps moduleset. If it's applications released by the GNOME project, shouldn't we get back some release criteria? Module maintainers release their modules; GNOME provides infrastructure and a community. If it's just to facilitate jhbuilding, what's the difference between the -apps and the -world modulesets? That should be fixed, I agree. Well, there was the moduleset reorg announcement, but after that we also had 8 months of practice, and they don't quite fit, because in some sense, what has changed? nothing, applications still wanted to be under the GNOME shelter, and the release team kept offering that. We put up a feature proposal period in place, and applications kept being proposed, and that discrepancy is part of this thread, Vincent wrote: I said that I didn't feel Boxes should be tracked as a feature. If that's what happened then did we ever /really/ implement the change that we all agreed on? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 08:08, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: [1] http://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps -- just to give an example: I feel that a backup tool makes more sense than boxes as a core app, imho. And the wiki says that such a tool is very likely not a core app but would make a great regular app. I'm certainly surprised by that, as backup is the kind of functionality I would expect to be available as part of the shell but working with VMs less so. I could be convinced that for most people, working with VMs is important enough, but for sure backups should as well, in that case. Maybe the criteria for considering what functionality belongs to the core should be defined more clearly? Regards, Tomeu -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
Hi, On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 00:37 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit : Hi everyone, As most of you know, we proposed Boxes for 3.4 and from what I can tell, there were no big objections in the end. There was then the question of us actually delivering in time. As seen on planet GNOME not long after that, we delivered the first release which was included in 3.3.2. There is still a long way ahead to make Boxes the awesome app that we all would like it to be but to ensure that Boxes is in good enough shape for 3.4 inclusion in time, we would like to know a few things: * which features exactly are must? * is the plan to keep vinagre in 3.4 alongside boxes? * is Boxes going to be a 'preview' feature in 3.4 like Documents was in 3.2? Release team? everyone? I'm sorry, but I still have the same objection :-) And talking to a few people, I understood that I'm not alone in feeling that Boxes might not fit core GNOME (even as a core app [1]). Can you be more specific about the reasons for your objection? Do you feel the same way about Vinagre? [1] http://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps -- just to give an example: I feel that a backup tool makes more sense than boxes as a core app, imho. And the wiki says that such a tool is very likely not a core app but would make a great regular app. Really, this shouldn't be a competition between Backup and Boxes. There are a number of reasons why Backup is in (for now) in the prospective section. None of which are really on topic for this thread. Jon ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 10:31 +0100, William Jon McCann a écrit : Hi, On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 00:37 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit : Hi everyone, As most of you know, we proposed Boxes for 3.4 and from what I can tell, there were no big objections in the end. There was then the question of us actually delivering in time. As seen on planet GNOME not long after that, we delivered the first release which was included in 3.3.2. There is still a long way ahead to make Boxes the awesome app that we all would like it to be but to ensure that Boxes is in good enough shape for 3.4 inclusion in time, we would like to know a few things: * which features exactly are must? * is the plan to keep vinagre in 3.4 alongside boxes? * is Boxes going to be a 'preview' feature in 3.4 like Documents was in 3.2? Release team? everyone? I'm sorry, but I still have the same objection :-) And talking to a few people, I understood that I'm not alone in feeling that Boxes might not fit core GNOME (even as a core app [1]). Can you be more specific about the reasons for your objection? As mentioned in the previous thread: I don't think Boxes is needed for what is our main target audience. And let me state again that it is a nice tool for a small part of our users (including our own community). Do you feel the same way about Vinagre? To me, the main use case of Vinagre is remote desktop administration, when coupled with Vino. And that's actually why we added vino in 2.8 (to help sysadmins help users), and then vinagre in 2.22 (nice complement to vino). The vino/vinagre duo is/was oriented towards sysadmins (although it could be used for other use cases). [1] http://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps -- just to give an example: I feel that a backup tool makes more sense than boxes as a core app, imho. And the wiki says that such a tool is very likely not a core app but would make a great regular app. Really, this shouldn't be a competition between Backup and Boxes. This is not a competition. This was just an example to help show why I feel Boxes doesn't fit in that category. Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 10:31 +0100, William Jon McCann a écrit : Hi, On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 00:37 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit : Hi everyone, As most of you know, we proposed Boxes for 3.4 and from what I can tell, there were no big objections in the end. There was then the question of us actually delivering in time. As seen on planet GNOME not long after that, we delivered the first release which was included in 3.3.2. There is still a long way ahead to make Boxes the awesome app that we all would like it to be but to ensure that Boxes is in good enough shape for 3.4 inclusion in time, we would like to know a few things: * which features exactly are must? * is the plan to keep vinagre in 3.4 alongside boxes? * is Boxes going to be a 'preview' feature in 3.4 like Documents was in 3.2? Release team? everyone? I'm sorry, but I still have the same objection :-) And talking to a few people, I understood that I'm not alone in feeling that Boxes might not fit core GNOME (even as a core app [1]). Can you be more specific about the reasons for your objection? As mentioned in the previous thread: I don't think Boxes is needed for what is our main target audience. And let me state again that it is a nice tool for a small part of our users (including our own community). The only thing you mentioned in the other thread that I saw was a feeling that it wasn't right. Can you explain why you don't think it is useful and for what audience? Do you feel the same way about Vinagre? To me, the main use case of Vinagre is remote desktop administration, when coupled with Vino. And that's actually why we added vino in 2.8 (to help sysadmins help users), and then vinagre in 2.22 (nice complement to vino). The vino/vinagre duo is/was oriented towards sysadmins (although it could be used for other use cases). Do you think these should not be part of the GNOME core? Jon ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 12:33 +0100, William Jon McCann a écrit : On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 10:31 +0100, William Jon McCann a écrit : Hi, On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 00:37 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit : Hi everyone, As most of you know, we proposed Boxes for 3.4 and from what I can tell, there were no big objections in the end. There was then the question of us actually delivering in time. As seen on planet GNOME not long after that, we delivered the first release which was included in 3.3.2. There is still a long way ahead to make Boxes the awesome app that we all would like it to be but to ensure that Boxes is in good enough shape for 3.4 inclusion in time, we would like to know a few things: * which features exactly are must? * is the plan to keep vinagre in 3.4 alongside boxes? * is Boxes going to be a 'preview' feature in 3.4 like Documents was in 3.2? Release team? everyone? I'm sorry, but I still have the same objection :-) And talking to a few people, I understood that I'm not alone in feeling that Boxes might not fit core GNOME (even as a core app [1]). Can you be more specific about the reasons for your objection? As mentioned in the previous thread: I don't think Boxes is needed for what is our main target audience. And let me state again that it is a nice tool for a small part of our users (including our own community). The only thing you mentioned in the other thread that I saw was a feeling that it wasn't right. I said that I didn't feel Boxes should be tracked as a feature, and that I didn't believe it was useful to most users. Can you explain why you don't think it is useful and for what audience? Just to clarify: I didn't say it is not useful. I even said it's something that is essential to some users. Boxes is great for software developers, contributors to GNOME distros, and technology enthusiasts. Those are all people we care deeply about, but I don't believe they represent such a high percentage of our users (or of all users we'd like to have). And we can (and should) deliver and promote Boxes to the developers, contributors and enthusiasts without having Boxes part of the core. Do you feel the same way about Vinagre? To me, the main use case of Vinagre is remote desktop administration, when coupled with Vino. And that's actually why we added vino in 2.8 (to help sysadmins help users), and then vinagre in 2.22 (nice complement to vino). The vino/vinagre duo is/was oriented towards sysadmins (although it could be used for other use cases). Do you think these should not be part of the GNOME core? I think vino should stay as a desktop service, but vinagre could potentially go as an app that is not part of core. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011 à 12:54 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit : The vino/vinagre duo is/was oriented towards sysadmins (although it could be used for other use cases). Do you think these should not be part of the GNOME core? I think vino should stay as a desktop service, but vinagre could potentially go as an app that is not part of core. As a quick side note, vino and vinagre are used by empathy's Share my desktop feature which is definitely more an end-user feature (my mom uses it!) than a sysadmin one. And yeah, empathy is in core as well. G. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
2011/11/30 Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org The only thing you mentioned in the other thread that I saw was a feeling that it wasn't right. I said that I didn't feel Boxes should be tracked as a feature, and that I didn't believe it was useful to most users. I agree with Vincent: there is a difference between Boxes is useful and Boxes should be a core feature of GNOME. Can you explain why you don't think it is useful and for what audience? Just to clarify: I didn't say it is not useful. I even said it's something that is essential to some users. Boxes is great for software developers, contributors to GNOME distros, and technology enthusiasts. Those are all people we care deeply about, but I don't believe they represent such a high percentage of our users (or of all users we'd like to have). I feel the same contradiction: we want to hide the file manager because file systems and folders are a trouble and an unclear concept, but at the same time we promote a VM (local and remote) manager tool as a day-to-day need. THis feeling drives to me to the following question: what's the audience you (William and Jackub, if I recall correctly the Boxes design is from you) you had in mind for GNOME? And, in suborder, why can't Boxes be simply a non-core, featured application, just like GIMP or Simple Scan? (if I missed a previous explanation, sorry: please point me to it) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Luca Ferretti lferr...@gnome.org wrote: THis feeling drives to me to the following question: what's the audience you (William and Jackub, if I recall correctly the Boxes design is from you) you had in mind for GNOME? And, in suborder, why can't Boxes be simply a non-core, featured application, just like GIMP or Simple Scan? (if I missed a previous explanation, sorry: please point me to it) I don't understand the controversy here. Looking at the 3.4 modulesets, boxes lives in gnome-apps, in the meta-gnome-apps-tested metamodule. Right between all the other 'non-core, featured applications'. Whats the problem ? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:15 +0100, Luca Ferretti wrote: And, in suborder, why can't Boxes be simply a non-core, featured application, just like GIMP or Simple Scan? Because there's a big difference between an integrated, designed, polished, documented and translated GNOME app and something that happens to use GTK, right? Just because it isn't targeted at core audience doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an awesome part of GNOME if you happen to be in an alternate space. You know, like IT professionals? We're getting *ransacked* out there in discussions in LUGs around the world (e.g. [1]) because power users are trying GNOME 3 have found it totally interferes with their accustomed workflows. Unhappy campers. If people in LUGs have the idea that GNOME 3 is no use for them, do you really think they're going to push for its adoption in the wider company that they have to support? So the whole discussion about whether Boxes is core or not is ridiculous. If it meets the standards of being a good GNOME app (HIG, oh HIG, where art thou HIG) then it should be endorsed and promoted. Period. AfC Sydney [1] http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/slug/2011/11/msg00026.html but I've seen similar conversations in at least three other countries. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
2011/11/30 Andrew Cowie and...@operationaldynamics.com: On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:15 +0100, Luca Ferretti wrote: And, in suborder, why can't Boxes be simply a non-core, featured application, just like GIMP or Simple Scan? Because there's a big difference between an integrated, designed, polished, documented and translated GNOME app and something that happens to use GTK, right? Not sure, but maybe you missed the point of that examples. The key is, in effect, the current integration of Boxes (or the feauture that Boxes provide) in GNOME desktop. I feel Boxes is just a stand alone application that allows you to perform tasks unrelated to the audiece we want to target. On the other side and as example of integration, the current Vino/Vinagre couple can allow you to share a screen using our chat application Empathy, a feature useful non-tech people too. Maybe Boxes will be able to do the same, but personally I don't have any urge to include it here and now as _core_ module or feature of GNOME. Just because it isn't targeted at core audience doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an awesome part of GNOME if you happen to be in an alternate space. You know, like IT professionals? Well, we had many discussions about stuff not targeted at core audience in the past months, and they are still not part of GNOME design ;) We're getting *ransacked* out there in discussions in LUGs around the world (e.g. [1]) because power users are trying GNOME 3 have found it totally interferes with their accustomed workflows. Unhappy campers. If people in LUGs have the idea that GNOME 3 is no use for them, do you really think they're going to push for its adoption in the wider company that they have to support? I fear power users and LUG people will be more prone to say there are too few options to tune the VMs or you are forcing us to use the virtualization framework you like, and it sucks. However, I don't want too see Boxes as a solution, it's just a tool that will allow you to use VMs and remote machines. It could be a plus when we'll release a full GNOME OS, but when this will occur IT professionists and tech enthusiast people will show more interest in supported protocols (vnc, rdp, ...) and virtualization infrastructure than in integrated appearence of a frontend. BTW: planned protocols? The design page simply says Connecting to a work machine from home ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
However, I don't want too see Boxes as a solution, it's just a tool that will allow you to use VMs and remote machines. It could be a plus when we'll release a full GNOME OS, but when this will occur IT professionists and tech enthusiast people will show more interest in supported protocols (vnc, rdp, ...) and virtualization infrastructure than in integrated appearence of a frontend. BTW: planned protocols? The design page simply says Connecting to a work machine from home Out of curiosity, does Boxes have every machine as a task or is Boxes just one task? For instance, I tend to connect to many machines, I switch between them using alt-tab.or the overview. I get the impression that Boxes puts all the machines in one box and then you manage within that? (as an aside, I would be interested in an integrated ssh solution if you're out to please sysadmin like myself) sri ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 16:32, Andrew Cowie and...@operationaldynamics.comwrote: On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:15 +0100, Luca Ferretti wrote: And, in suborder, why can't Boxes be simply a non-core, featured application, just like GIMP or Simple Scan? Because there's a big difference between an integrated, designed, polished, documented and translated GNOME app and something that happens to use GTK, right? That's the distinction between Featured Apps and everything else in the world. Core is for, well, core OS and desktop functionality that everyone can't do without. The only thing requiring approval today is Platform and Core. It certainly belongs in the apps moduleset where it is now so that it can facilitate easy jhbuilding. There's no approval required for the apps moduleset nor for Feature Apps (which is only a marketing distinction). Boxes looks wonderful. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Andrew Cowie and...@operationaldynamics.com wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:15 +0100, Luca Ferretti wrote: And, in suborder, why can't Boxes be simply a non-core, featured application, just like GIMP or Simple Scan? Because there's a big difference between an integrated, designed, polished, documented and translated GNOME app and something that happens to use GTK, right? Just because it isn't targeted at core audience doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an awesome part of GNOME if you happen to be in an alternate space. You know, like IT professionals? We're getting *ransacked* out there in discussions in LUGs around the world (e.g. [1]) because power users are trying GNOME 3 have found it totally interferes with their accustomed workflows. Unhappy campers. If people in LUGs have the idea that GNOME 3 is no use for them, do you really think they're going to push for its adoption in the wider company that they have to support? So the whole discussion about whether Boxes is core or not is ridiculous. If it meets the standards of being a good GNOME app (HIG, oh HIG, where art thou HIG) then it should be endorsed and promoted. Period. While I greatly appreciate your support for Boxes here, I must inform you that Boxes is *not* targeted for IT professionals. For that we have virt-manager and oVirt. Regarding the rationale of Boxes as a core app, I think we definitely need something to nicely handle insertion of an OS installer or live media. The best thing to do in that scenerio is the creation and launch of a VM (box) and Boxes already does that for you. Without Boxes as part of every GNOME installation, we won't have this working out of the box and bore the users by showing them files on the media. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zeesha...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Andrew Cowie and...@operationaldynamics.com wrote: We're getting *ransacked* out there in discussions in LUGs around the world (e.g. [1]) because power users are trying GNOME 3 have found it totally interferes with their accustomed workflows. Unhappy campers. If people in LUGs have the idea that GNOME 3 is no use for them, do you really think they're going to push for its adoption in the wider company that they have to support? So the whole discussion about whether Boxes is core or not is ridiculous. If it meets the standards of being a good GNOME app (HIG, oh HIG, where art thou HIG) then it should be endorsed and promoted. Period. While I greatly appreciate your support for Boxes here, I must inform you that Boxes is *not* targeted for IT professionals. For that we have virt-manager and oVirt. Don't get me wrong please. I'm sure Boxes *will* satisfy many IT professionals as well and we will try our best to support their use-cases as long as those use-cases do not conflict with that of a typical end-user. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
Hi! Regarding the rationale of Boxes as a core app, I think we definitely need something to nicely handle insertion of an OS installer or live media. The best thing to do in that scenerio is the creation and launch of a VM (box) and Boxes already does that for you. Without Boxes as part of every GNOME installation, we won't have this working out of the box and bore the users by showing them files on the media. Be honest, how often have you inserted an OS installer or live media in your life. Even as a power user I haven't use my DVD drive for probably the last half year. I don't think this is a typical day-to-day use case. Anyway, as Matthias already pointed out, Boxes is fine in the moduleset it currently is in. Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zeesha...@gnome.org wrote: Hi everyone, As most of you know, we proposed Boxes for 3.4 and from what I can tell, there were no big objections in the end. There was then the question of us actually delivering in time. As seen on planet GNOME not long after that, we delivered the first release which was included in 3.3.2. There is still a long way ahead to make Boxes the awesome app that we all would like it to be but to ensure that Boxes is in good enough shape for 3.4 inclusion in time, we would like to know a few things: * which features exactly are must? * is the plan to keep vinagre in 3.4 alongside boxes? * is Boxes going to be a 'preview' feature in 3.4 like Documents was in 3.2? First of all, congratulations on getting a respectable first release out ! I don't think vinagre is going away anytime soon (if ever), so focussing on the vm aspects in boxes for 3.4 over the remote connection parts might be a smart choice. I don't know if adding a 'preview' qualifier to the feature really adds much clarity. Our 3.4 announcement should clearly document what boxes has to offer then, and what's still in planning/development. That will hopefully carry the message that boxes is a promising, new app and not fully grown yet. It would be a great goal to be able to run gnome 3.4 images inside boxes in gnome 3.4. Matthias ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Boxes and 3.4
Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011, à 00:37 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit : Hi everyone, As most of you know, we proposed Boxes for 3.4 and from what I can tell, there were no big objections in the end. There was then the question of us actually delivering in time. As seen on planet GNOME not long after that, we delivered the first release which was included in 3.3.2. There is still a long way ahead to make Boxes the awesome app that we all would like it to be but to ensure that Boxes is in good enough shape for 3.4 inclusion in time, we would like to know a few things: * which features exactly are must? * is the plan to keep vinagre in 3.4 alongside boxes? * is Boxes going to be a 'preview' feature in 3.4 like Documents was in 3.2? Release team? everyone? I'm sorry, but I still have the same objection :-) And talking to a few people, I understood that I'm not alone in feeling that Boxes might not fit core GNOME (even as a core app [1]). Note that this shouldn't actually block any work on Boxes, as it does look like a great application. Vincent [1] http://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps -- just to give an example: I feel that a backup tool makes more sense than boxes as a core app, imho. And the wiki says that such a tool is very likely not a core app but would make a great regular app. -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
