It's not an Informational, it's actually a warning because it negatively impacts the juju ecosystem OR is part of charm policy (both of which are true). I sympathize with the author and am super appreciative of the amount of work the author is doing by getting proper permission for use of their logo in the icon. However, I don't see an issue with the author creating a temporary icon with text on an appropriate background while waiting to receive proper permission for the icon. An icon is better than no icon.
As for your experience, I don't recall temporary icons being rejected, could it be that you didn't make it clear it was a temporary icon? Finally, and a very *very* important piece of information. The charm *is* in the charm store. It's available under their namespace cs:~lpuser/charm and nothing stopping it from being found https://jujucharms.com/~fgimenez/trusty/cakephp-7/ There's nothing wrong with saying "You've done a great job, but an icon is needed to be considered */a recommended charm/*" which is what the review process is doing. Promoting it to a "reviewed" status, not promoting it to the charm store. Not a final say, but my opinion on the situation. Marco On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:48 AM, José Antonio Rey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > As I am subscribed to all bugs in Juju (as some of you may also be), > today I got an email from a CakePHP charm review. On this one, a charmer > had to reject the submission because, when promulgating, the tool runs > `charm proof` to make sure things are not broken, not promulgating if > any Error or Warning pops up. And there was a problem: this charm did > not have an icon (which throws a Warning in `charm proof`, making it > impossible to promulgate it. > > I totally understand what has been done. Now, a charm cannot be > promulgated when there are Errors or Warnings. But since not having an > icon is a Warning, it will not allow a charmer to promulgate any charms > which do not contain an icon, may it be because the author is asking for > official permission (like in this case), because the service has no > icon, or any other reasons. In some of the cases, it may be a > fully-working charm, with no other issues apart from not having an icon. > We even have lots of charms with no icon in the store. And about > proposing a temporary icon, when I proposed an icon which was just an > orange background with the service name, it got rejected. So, I don't > know what may be an idea for a 'temporary' or 'provisional' icon. > > I believe having an icon is not that of a priority, and that we should > focus in having charms that provide working services. Still, we should > try to ensure and promote the idea of charms having icons, but I do not > see it as a fatal error like to prevent promulgation. > > In this case, I would be for demoting the level of the warning issued by > `charm proof` from Warning to Information. This, as it is not something > critical, and charms/services will still work, even with no icon. It > doesn't affect functionality, but it only removes the pretty part (that > can be added later) of the GUI. By doing this, we will throw something > when `charm proof` is ran, but still allow promulgation if there is no > icon. > > What do you guys think about it? > > -- > José Antonio Rey > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
