Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
- Original Message - On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 22:34 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: The gnome-3.12 copr includes a couple of low-level package updates that change abi/api that affects other desktops, notably: upower-0.99 PackageKit-0.9.x Are these 2 required by gnome-3.12 or would it be possible to use the (current) f20 versions? PackageKit should not need to be updated. upower will be a small problem. GNOME might need to be patched to use the older upower in F20 (or the other desktops could be patched to use the newer upower). I'd prefer to limit updates to GNOME only, so it would be desirable to get GNOME patched. It's easier to test if one desktop works well when patched than trying to test the whole world of other desktops (and probably forget something). So make this change self-contained rather than system wide. Otherwise I'm in favour of updates, these days it's pretty standard to even change the UI during life cycle of product and actually, users usually call for it (recently for example the OS in my STB changed from scratch and I was eagerly waiting for it ;-). Of course, it needs to be communicated to users. Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
Am Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:39:14 + schrieb devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org: Message: 2 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 08:27:59 -0500 From: Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org To: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update Message-ID: 1396704479.2436.5.camel@victory-road Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 22:34 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: The gnome-3.12 copr includes a couple of low-level package updates that change abi/api that affects other desktops, notably: upower-0.99 PackageKit-0.9.x Are these 2 required by gnome-3.12 or would it be possible to use the (current) f20 versions? PackageKit should not need to be updated. upower will be a small problem. GNOME might need to be patched to use the older upower in F20 (or the other desktops could be patched to use the newer upower). Updating to upower-1.0 will also break the power-management of Mate desktop in f20 ! Mate upream did start on working it for rawhide, but it isn't ready, and our target was to support it in f21. So updating upower before f21 is released isn't real fair, and will break users boxes in a running release cycle of a distro. Such a update should have been announced also timely, imo. regards, Wolfgang -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400: Hey, so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have already received fairly wide testing. But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the parallel nature of the copr itself. Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? I had really bed experience on my laptop (Lenovo X201, Intel graphics). At first I've got to dependency loop with yum. I had some other DM (cinnamon, xfce, kde plasma) and some extra repositories (for flash-plugin, skype, ...): [adobe-linux-x86_64] name=Adobe Systems Incorporated baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-adobe-linux [fedora-skype] name=Skype for Fedora baseurl=http://negativo17.org/repos/skype/fedora-$releasever/$basearch/ enabled=1 skip_if_unavailable=1 gpgkey=http://negativo17.org/repos/RPM-GPG-KEY-slaanesh gpgcheck=1 [google-chrome] name=google-chrome baseurl=http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64 enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 and rpmfusion-free.repo rpmfusion-nonfree.repo something wanted packages from gnome 3.10. I've suspected cinnamon firstly but I couldn't prove that. In Fedora 20 is no way how to uninstall yum groups anymore so I've tried uninstall them manually with no success to dependency problem. Than I've read rhudges comment he use dnf instead of you to update. Update worked but after reboot I've ended in black GDM screen. After startx from text console I've got: „Oh no! Something has gone wrong.“ and only window of Pidgin and button Log Out“ were visible. Than I've found several packages not replaced with newer from rhughes-f20-gnome-3-12, which I did manually than but with no positive result to functionality. I've tried replace my homedir with empty one but with the same result. I didn't find reason and had to reinstall laptop. After brand new installation of F20 update to gnome 3.12 worked even with yum with no problem and everything seam to work fine. This is my story Pavel If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. Matthias -- Pavel Lisý pavel.l...@gmail.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/04/2014 05:40 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: First after the upgrade I didn't even boot to GDM. Too bad I didn't debug it because I had already been considering a clean install, so I did it right away. My setup was not typical, I had been upgrading since F15. But apparently I was not the only one. One guy on the forum complained about a very similar problem. He blames i686 packages and their dependencies which might have been my problem as well because due to Steam I also had a lot from the graphics stack installed in i686 versions. I had the same problem. It turned out I was missing the glib2 package update from the COPR. The reason was that I had both glib2.x86_64 and glib2.i686 installed, but I only enabled the x86_64 COPR. dnf silently skipped updating the package due to this problem. COPRs lack of multilib support is really broken .. is there work being done to fix this? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 17:55 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote: I had the same problem. It turned out I was missing the glib2 package update from the COPR. The reason was that I had both glib2.x86_64 and glib2.i686 installed, but I only enabled the x86_64 COPR. dnf silently skipped updating the package due to this problem. We noticed this. Richard updated the install instructions to include both repos: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/rhughes/f20-gnome-3-12/ If using dnf, please use the --best flag. Otherwise, dnf simply skips broken packages without reporting any errors. Adam added a note to the updates-testing guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 22:34 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: The gnome-3.12 copr includes a couple of low-level package updates that change abi/api that affects other desktops, notably: upower-0.99 PackageKit-0.9.x Are these 2 required by gnome-3.12 or would it be possible to use the (current) f20 versions? PackageKit should not need to be updated. upower will be a small problem. GNOME might need to be patched to use the older upower in F20 (or the other desktops could be patched to use the newer upower). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On 04/04/2014 05:55 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote: Perhaps a versioned dependency on glib2 would be worth adding somewhere, but anyway I would not see this problem if this were a normal Fedora update, because then I'd get the package for both archs. Good idea. I've now added versioned dependencies to a few more places. However, while testing this, I noticed that COPR repo metadata includes all older versions of packages ever built in the COPR. This unfortunately means that DNF is free to pick older packages to satisfy dependencies if it can't work out a transaction with the latest version. For example, gtk3-3.12.0-2 now has a versioned dep on glib2(x86-64) = 2.40.0, but that doesn't help much if DNF ends up pulling in gtk3-3.12.0-1 instead :( -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Sat, 2014-04-05 at 22:14 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: However, while testing this, I noticed that COPR repo metadata includes all older versions of packages ever built in the COPR. This unfortunately means that DNF is free to pick older packages to satisfy dependencies if it can't work out a transaction with the latest version. For example, gtk3-3.12.0-2 now has a versioned dep on glib2(x86-64) = 2.40.0, but that doesn't help much if DNF ends up pulling in gtk3-3.12.0-1 instead :( Like I said earlier, please use --best with dnf to force it to use the latest version. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400: Hey, so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have already received fairly wide testing. But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the parallel nature of the copr itself. Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. Hi, I've been using Richard's repo for two weeks. Here are some problems I've encountered: First after the upgrade I didn't even boot to GDM. Too bad I didn't debug it because I had already been considering a clean install, so I did it right away. My setup was not typical, I had been upgrading since F15. But apparently I was not the only one. One guy on the forum complained about a very similar problem. He blames i686 packages and their dependencies which might have been my problem as well because due to Steam I also had a lot from the graphics stack installed in i686 versions. But this is a case of my users and we should look into it because there can't be a worse scenario from user's POV than not booting into UI after updates. I've had quite a lot of problems with GNOME Software. It froze when hitting the Install button quite often. It couldn't find some applications. For example it couldn't find GNOME Photos, so I had to install it in yum. It didn't load the large banner of the picked app on the front page in many occasions. The hiding pointer in GNOME Terminal is pretty annoying. I haven't found a way to set up a connection via bluetooth with a connected device. There is no such option in the bluetooth module in the system settings and the network module or network section in the user menu don't provide such an option either after you set up a connection with a bluetooth device. I find this a significant regression. Otherwise it's been a pleasant experience and this release of GNOME seems to be very solid. But I would rather wait for at least 3.12.1 release and discuss it with Fedora QA because the upgrade should have at least a bit of systematic testing. Jiri -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On 04/04/2014 05:40 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: First after the upgrade I didn't even boot to GDM. Too bad I didn't debug it because I had already been considering a clean install, so I did it right away. My setup was not typical, I had been upgrading since F15. But apparently I was not the only one. One guy on the forum complained about a very similar problem. He blames i686 packages and their dependencies which might have been my problem as well because due to Steam I also had a lot from the graphics stack installed in i686 versions. I had the same problem. It turned out I was missing the glib2 package update from the COPR. The reason was that I had both glib2.x86_64 and glib2.i686 installed, but I only enabled the x86_64 COPR. dnf silently skipped updating the package due to this problem. Gnome shell was crashing with: gnome-session[1722]: (gnome-shell:1876): Gjs-WARNING **: JS ERROR: Error: No property 'gi' in importer (or its value was undefined) gnome-session[1722]: _init@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/overrides/GLib.js:258 gnome-session[1722]: @resource:///org/gnome/shell/ui/environment.js:3 gnome-session[1722]: @main:1 gnome-session[1722]: gnome-session[1722]: WARNING: Application 'gnome-shell.desktop' killed by signal 11 Perhaps a versioned dependency on glib2 would be worth adding somewhere, but anyway I would not see this problem if this were a normal Fedora update, because then I'd get the package for both archs. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then they'll stop working until updated. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
2014-04-03 16:52 GMT+02:00 Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org: On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then they'll stop working until updated. One, at least theoretical, way to resolve this would be to update all extensions hosted at extensions.gnome.org to support 3.12. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:57:10PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: 2014-04-03 16:52 GMT+02:00 Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org: Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then they'll stop working until updated. One, at least theoretical, way to resolve this would be to update all extensions hosted at extensions.gnome.org to support 3.12. Don't the extensions end up in the user's home directory? How can we forcibly update them? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On 04/03/2014 02:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: Hey, so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have already received fairly wide testing. But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the parallel nature of the copr itself. Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. Are you going to be delivering drastic changes to peoples UI interface by updating Gnome to a new Gnome release in a middle of GA cycle? Has FESCo approved this? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/03/2014 10:52 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then they'll stop working until updated. There's an option in Gnome Shell buried in the gsettings that allows you to ignore this check and just run them. I've got that on and it worked successfully with all the extensions I run[1] (I need to go and inform the extension upstreams of that fact). One option we could look into would be for GNOME to set this option on by default for a month or so to give extension authors time to catch up while not breaking any user extension that works unmodified. [1] http://sgallagh.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/one-week-with-gnome-3-classic-twenty-eight-days-later/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlM9ej4ACgkQeiVVYja6o6MrOACgnyrLB0/y1E94hdoTs7PAdSnf fOQAmwZBcaIzX4RJ4bp3/EepKI0n2XhS =moGK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/03/2014 02:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: Hey, so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have already received fairly wide testing. But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the parallel nature of the copr itself. Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. Are you going to be delivering drastic changes to peoples UI interface by updating Gnome to a new Gnome release in a middle of GA cycle? Has FESCo approved this? Did you read more than just the subject? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/03/2014 11:07 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 04/03/2014 02:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: Hey, so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have already received fairly wide testing. But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the parallel nature of the copr itself. Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. Are you going to be delivering drastic changes to peoples UI interface by updating Gnome to a new Gnome release in a middle of GA cycle? Has FESCo approved this? Your question was answered in the quote you included: he's asking for the general devel list to discuss this before he brings it to FESCo for their approval or refusal. Also, as someone who has been testing this update in the COPR for about a month now, there are a few striking changes (the redesign of gedit is thoroughly perplexing), but on the whole I haven't found anything fundamentally out of place in the desktop environment (just in a few of the apps). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlM9ey4ACgkQeiVVYja6o6PDFgCePoMjYKi+F5bNcEsTvnJ04uVM fyEAnR701UCZzN0t5Jth6p5ka4ROiRCI =IhU8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 03:52:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then they'll stop working until updated. I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost everything worked when I told it to not do the check, and others were updated. Also, when I look at https://extensions.gnome.org/ sorted by popularity, _most_ of the top ones are already updated. I'd like to see an effort to get the remaining few that are on the top N pages updated, and then I'd be pretty comfortable recommending this as an F20 update. When I'm _running_ 3.12, I can get the web site to give me a list of all the extensions sorted by popularity, with the ones that aren't compatible grayed out. Can one do that _for 3.12_ from a 3.10 system? Then I can send out a link that says Check if the stuff you really care about needs a update. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org Tepid change for the somewhat better! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:11:58AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: One option we could look into would be for GNOME to set this option on by default for a month or so to give extension authors time to catch up while not breaking any user extension that works unmodified. My understanding was that there was no mechanism for automatically updating extensions at present. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: One option we could look into would be for GNOME to set this option on by default for a month or so to give extension authors time to catch up while not breaking any user extension that works unmodified. My understanding was that there was no mechanism for automatically updating extensions at present. Hmmm, yeah; I'm fairly diligent about going to the https://extensions.gnome.org/local/ and clicking the update button. I can see the reservations with doing this automatically. Is an upgrade helper app of some sort a good idea? For the future, maybe we need to look at shipping more of these as RPMs. I know RPMs are not the General Statement for the Future Of Distros, but it is an existing mechanism we have for solving basically this exact problem. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org Tepid change for the somewhat better! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
Matthias Clasen mclasen at redhat.com writes: Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg is still not working in Rawhide (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045669 ). This only affects Fedora so thought I should mention it here. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On 04/03/2014 03:15 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Also, as someone who has been testing this update in the COPR for about a month now Did you ( and others ) run through QA release blocking test cases for Gnome or is this more I have been running Gnome for about a month now kinda thing? , there are a few striking changes (the redesign of gedit is thoroughly perplexing), but on the whole I haven't found anything fundamentally out of place in the desktop environment (just in a few of the apps). Let me rephrase my question Do we allow for ui changes being made how small they might be or how big they might be to our default desktop on GA releases? If the answer is yes, Gnome would be allowed to be made rebase-able between release If the answer is no well things remain the same. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On 04/03/2014 04:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: Hey, so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have already received fairly wide testing. But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem reports with the copr packages, besides dependency problems caused by the parallel nature of the copr itself. Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? If so, please let us know on the desktop list. If I don't hear of major problems by next week, I'll file a Fesco ticket to ask for an exception. You didn't mention the most important question: Did the API or ABI change in backward-incompatible way? If the answer to this question is yes, then the answer to updating to gnome-3.12 needs to be no, because such changes in released versions of Fedora are not allowed. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:09:43PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: You didn't mention the most important question: Did the API or ABI change in backward-incompatible way? If the answer to this question is yes, then the answer to updating to gnome-3.12 needs to be no, because such changes in released versions of Fedora are not allowed. I think we should ground the discussion in the actual policy, which doesn't say that, but does say ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged and Avoid Major version updates, ABI breakage or API changes if at all possible. That is significantly more qualifed. And more to the point, it says Some classes of software will not fit in these guidelines. If your package does not fit in one of the classes below, but you think it should be allowed to update more rapidly, propose a new exception class to FESCO and/or request an exception for your specific update case. Note that you should open this dialog BEFORE you build or push updates. which is exactly what is happening here. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy Now, in reading that policy, there are quite a few things that match the Things that would make it less likely to grant a request list. But, on the other hand, by having a longer-than-typical Fedora release cycle this time around, we are already in special circumstances territory. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org Tepid change for the somewhat better! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On 04/03/2014 04:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: Now, in reading that policy, there are quite a few things that match the Things that would make it less likely to grant a request list. But, on the other hand, by having a longer-than-typical Fedora release cycle this time around, we are already in special circumstances territory. Gnome community is not know for their stability in their UI so we are talking about user visible changes. Sysadmins on these parts brought out their voodoo dolls and started stabbing them while cursing the new and improved//network settings that came with F20 and Gnome 3.10 and other docket breakage that followed in other words Gnome community is not know for their stability in their UI so we are talking about user visible changes being introduced into GA release. And I have yet to see any request have been made to the test list to at least do the same validation on Gnome as is done before we release an new GA release. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 16:32 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 04/03/2014 04:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: Now, in reading that policy, there are quite a few things that match the Things that would make it less likely to grant a request list. But, on the other hand, by having a longer-than-typical Fedora release cycle this time around, we are already in special circumstances territory. Gnome community is not know for their stability in their UI so we are talking about user visible changes. Sysadmins on these parts brought out their voodoo dolls and started stabbing them while cursing the new and improved network settings that came with F20 and Gnome 3.10 and other docket breakage that followed in other words Gnome community is not know for their stability in their UI so we are talking about user visible changes being introduced into GA release. And I have yet to see any request have been made to the test list to at least do the same validation on Gnome as is done before we release an new GA release. Note that I am not asking about armchair opinions about whether this idea would theoretically fit the guidelines. Neither am I asking for war stories of sysadmins whose life was ruined by f20. I am interested in concrete problems that have been experienced by the people who have tried out Richards copr. If you are not in that group of people, maybe you should actually try the copr before participating in this discussion. Thanks, Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
Hi On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ? Yes but I got updates for most of them. Couple of them are still broken https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/8/places-status-indicator/ https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/696/skype-integration/ Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? Nope. GNOME Shell used to crash now and then earlier but not anymore. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ? Hi Matthias, I had a problem with the new totem/Videos having a non-responsive UI. I'm away on a work assignment until the 13th so unfortunately I can't verify that it's still a problem or if it was some bad configuration that I had. From what I remember, videos directly in my home directory were displayed as thumbnails on the main window and they would play fine. If I tried to add/open a local video from another location (even subdirectory of my home) by clicking on the + at the corner, nothing happened. I wasn't given an open file dialog or anything like that. As I said, it may not actually still be a problem. Maybe someone else can verify? Thanks, Gerard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:09:32PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: And I have yet to see any request have been made to the test list to at least do the same validation on Gnome as is done before we release an new GA release. Note that I am not asking about armchair opinions about whether this idea would theoretically fit the guidelines. Let's keep this friendly and in line with the be excellent guideline, please. I know you are both very passionate about this. Phrasing aside, the basic concern about bad user experience due to changing UI mid-cycle is completely valid and has nothing to do with any general perception of Gnome. That's why the policy is there, after all. There's no reason any contributor can't raise those sort of points even if it wasn't what you asked. It's an important point of the overall decision. And, Jóhann's note about working with the QA team to develop a test plan and run through it seems worth pursuing if the members of QA team are interested and willing (or interested in helping Gnome people or volunteers figure out how it's normally done). I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that extra review would making doing the rebase a lot more comfortable -- anecdotal reports from people running Rawhide or using the Copr are useful for what they are, but they're not formal QA. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org Tepid change for the somewhat better! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Gerard Ryan gali...@fedoraproject.orgwrote: I had a problem with the new totem/Videos having a non-responsive UI. Probably https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725063 -- -Elad Alfassa. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On 04/03/2014 06:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:09:43PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: You didn't mention the most important question: Did the API or ABI change in backward-incompatible way? If the answer to this question is yes, then the answer to updating to gnome-3.12 needs to be no, because such changes in released versions of Fedora are not allowed. I think we should ground the discussion in the actual policy, which doesn't say that, but does say ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged and Avoid Major version updates, ABI breakage or API changes if at all possible. That is significantly more qualifed. And more to the point, it says Some classes of software will not fit in these guidelines. If your package does not fit in one of the classes below, but you think it should be allowed to update more rapidly, propose a new exception class to FESCO and/or request an exception for your specific update case. Note that you should open this dialog BEFORE you build or push updates. You should take the spirit behind this into account: ABI/API breakages are bad and should be avoided, unless they are inevitable, because they break and disturb user installations. which is exactly what is happening here. That's why I am asking. I want Mr. Clasen or somebody else from Gnome to provide a clear answer. So far, as I perceive Mr. Clasen, he deliberately avoided to answer. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy Now, in reading that policy, there are quite a few things that match the Things that would make it less likely to grant a request list. But, on the other hand, by having a longer-than-typical Fedora release cycle this time around, we are already in special circumstances territory. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 23:00 +0530, Gerard Ryan wrote: From what I remember, videos directly in my home directory were displayed as thumbnails on the main window and they would play fine. If I tried to add/open a local video from another location (even subdirectory of my home) by clicking on the + at the corner, nothing happened. I wasn't given an open file dialog or anything like that. As I said, it may not actually still be a problem. Maybe someone else can verify? Hey Gerard, This looks like https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725063 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 update
Matthias Clasen wrote: so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have already received fairly wide testing. I'll share here what I mentioned on desktop list... The gnome-3.12 copr includes a couple of low-level package updates that change abi/api that affects other desktops, notably: upower-0.99 PackageKit-0.9.x Are these 2 required by gnome-3.12 or would it be possible to use the (current) f20 versions? If required, then some extra work will be required (particularly for upower) to minimize the chances of breakage outside of gnome. One example, I'm not entirely sure if cinnamon-settings-daemon is fully ready yet, see also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048276 -- Rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
