On Friday, October 05, 2012 11:54:01 AM John Lea wrote:
> Forwarding to ubuntu-release,ubuntu-doc,and ubuntu-translators at Iain
> Lane's suggestion.
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Application of UIFEs
> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:28:19 +0100
> From: John Lea
> To: product-strat...@lists.canonical.com
> CC: Sebastien Bacher , Didier Roche
> , Jason Warner ,
> iain.l...@canonical.com, kate.stew...@canonical.com, Cristian Parrino
>
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Over the past week there have been a couple of cases where bug fixes
> have been IMHO incorrectly marked as requiring UIFEs.
>
> UIFEs are an important process step to make sure that string changes are
> translated and that users reading documentation are not confused.
> However visual bug fixes that do not involve string changes or bug fixes
> will not cause any user confusion if the documentation is not updated
> should not require a UIFE.
>
> Two of the examples from last week are:
>
> #1043808 - Preview activation doesn't have instant feedback
>
> #1052513 - 'More suggestions' icons in App Lens are too large
>
> In the case of the first bug, although adding a loading spinner is a
> visual change, if the documentation is not updated users will not be
> confused. This change also has no translation impact.
>
> In the case of the second bug, making the 'More Suggestions' app icons
> in the App Lens the correct size and thus fixing the bad pixelation will
> again not confuse users even if the documentation is not updated, and
> also this bug fix has no translation impact.
>
> Over zealous application of the UIFE rules increases the likelihood that
> fixes to bugs like these will not land in Quantal. I hope that we can
> take a more pragmatic approach when considering which bugs do or do not
> require a UIFE, and consider the total impact on all Ubuntu users of
> landing or not landing a bug fix, and not just the documentation impact.
>
> For example should we choose:
>
> a) perfectly consistent documentation with badly pixelated app icons in
> both the documentation and the App Lens for the Quantal cycle.
>
> b) to fix this bug in the App Lens even though the documentation would
> then become slightly inconsistent with the implementation?
>
> A yardstick to help make this choice could be "will the user be confused
> by this documentation inconsistency".
>
> Of course the root cause of these problems is how late all the features
> have been landing this cycle. Ideally all the features that are
> landing into a release should be complete by Feature Freeze; this would
> then give us enough time to really reduce the number of bugs we are
> seeing at this point in the cycle. However this is a different (and
> also very important) discussion.
You misunderstand the purpose of UIF and there is time between feature freeze
and UI freeze precisely to work out UI affecting bugs. I believe you are
trying to solve the wrong problem.
I agree it is a problem that so many bugs needed review for a UIFe, but I
think the root of that problem is that PS landed so much, so late. The
bureaucracy is much easier if you get your stuff in on time.
Scott K
--
Ubuntu-release mailing list
Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
