<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Peteris Krisjanis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pecisk@gmail.com">pecisk@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Problem is quite simple - we don't have enough manpower to do QA.</blockquote><div><br>If we don't have the manpower right now then perhaps we should consider<br> extending the beta or release candidate stage by a week in order to give<br> the manpower we have enough time to solve the most significant problems?<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Yes,<br> user testing matters, but having a a) spec with basic features defined<br></blockquote><div><br>Is their not already a page for this somewhere? I seem to remember seeing<br>something like this on the wiki, but I can't find it anymore. If not, someone<br> (with Canonical's blessing?) should create a brief list of basic features which<br>must be working in > 80% of cases before a release can be made.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> and b) small, but mobile team who can access to some ten of PCs and<br> laptops with various configurations would be a next step.<br> <br> Cheers,<br> Peter. </blockquote><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><div> </div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 2009/10/28 Evan <<a href="mailto:eapache@gmail.com">eapache@gmail.com</a>>:<br> <div><div></div><div class="h5">> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM, George Farris <<a href="mailto:farrisg@cc.mala.bc.ca">farrisg@cc.mala.bc.ca</a>><br> > wrote:<br> >><br> >> On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 09:36 +0000, Alexander H Deriziotis wrote:<br> >> ><br> >> > Is there hope for this to be fixed in karmic?<br> >> ><br> >> > I'm no developer, but I think that's very unlikely.<br> >> ><br> >> > It seems to me your best bet would be to try and avoid using the<br> >> > software which breaks the idle-indicators, or if that's too much<br> >> > hassle, just skip Karmic altogether and hope it's fixed in Lucid.<br> >> ><br> >> > Ubuntu does ship pretty bleeding edge software provided by upstream,<br> >> > so regressions are to be expected. It's only a 6 month wait after all.<br> >> ><br> >> According to this logic nothing will ever get smoothed out and quite<br> >> frankly we're all getting a little tired of that.<br> >><br> >> What they should do is publicly mark this distro:<br> >><br> >> "We have just released Karmic, due to the many upstream technology<br> >> changes such as HAL depreciation, inclusion of Empathy, etc, etc, please<br> >> consider this a bleeding edge distro not meant for regular distribution.<br> >> Business and regular users may want to consider sticking with an older<br> >> release or waiting for 10.04"<br> >><br> >> I've been using Ubuntu since Warty and I understand the logic in the<br> >> Linux community of "HAL isn't doing what we want, we're ripping it out<br> >> and replacing it". I think that is a great thing, something we have<br> >> over the other OS's, but don't paint Karmic as the greatest thing since<br> >> sliced bread. Take 9.10 and tune it until it "just works" and then have<br> >> a marketing frenzy.<br> >><br> >> Trust me, working at the University and also running the Linux users<br> >> group in the area, it would be much better to point at the release and<br> >> say, "see this is marked as a development version, you can expect fairly<br> >> basic things not to work". People are happy with that, the press is<br> >> happy with that, business is happy with that.<br> >><br> >> What I would hate to see is, wonderful press release about Karmic,<br> >> blathering on about all the goodness, only to have people rip it apart<br> >> due to some fairly visible bugs.<br> >><br> >> Lets just be up front about it and not drop any nasty surprises on<br> >> people.<br> ><br> > I 100% agree. I like the concept of a six-month release cycle, but if it<br> > means shipping with bugs of this visibility and magnitude then there is<br> > something wrong. If we are going to ship with bugs like this, then we cannot<br> > in all honesty call it a stable release. Maybe calling the 6-month releases<br> > 'major development milestones' would be more appropriate, and leave the<br> > 'stable release' moniker for LTS releases only.<br> ><br> > Just my two cents,<br> > Evan<br> ><br> ><br> </div></div>> --<br> <div><div></div><div class="h5">> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list<br> > <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:<br> > <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss</a><br> ><br> ><br> <br> <br> <br> </div></div><font color="#888888">--<br> mortigi tempo<br> Pēteris Krišjānis<br> </font></blockquote></div><br>