Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 09:00 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I would make the criterion a little more generic than that. E.g. we 
> don't want to block Fedora release if https://extensions.gnome.org/ 
> goes down due to a server problem, or if GNOME decides to change the 
> way extension installation works.

For the first part, we can add a footnote clarifying that we expect the
site to be working. For the second, if that happens, we can just change
the criterion. It's only text.

I'm not sure I can write it any more generically without losing all
meaning or unexpectedly broadening the scope. For instance if we just
say it must be possible to install extensions, what does that *mean*?
Is it OK if you can only do it by hacking around with gsettings values
manually? Or on the other end of the scale, does it require that *any
possible method* of installing extensions works? That just feels too
vague to me.

Do you have a suggestion for improved wording?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 15:42 -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 
> Discussed at the meeting today, and we definitely want this to work,
> and appreciate the bug report. We expect we'll be able to get it
> fixed for release. However, there's reluctance to broaden the scope
> of the criteria because our influence has limits, including the
> infrastructure aspects of extensions that we can't control (such as
> the web site itself). So we'd like to see this covered under existing
> criterion.

There is no relevant existing criterion.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 07:08 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
> On 9/13/22 6:31 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:35 PM Adam Williamson
> >  wrote:
> > > === GNOME extensions ===
> > > 
> > > On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
> > > extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
> > > browser, after installing the required browser extension.
> > > 
> > > #
> > > 
> > > Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?
> > Assuming the desktop folks don't say "OMG there's no way we could
> > handle this", then I'm on board with making this a final criterion.
> > This is one of those "we'll get dragged in reviews if it doesn't work"
> > sorts of things.
> > 
> > The wording looks good to me. I'm trying to think of an escape hatch
> > we can give ourselves if it goes particularly sideways at some point,
> > but maybe the "difficult to fix" exception would be good enough.
> 
> 
> As I explained previously to Adam, you *can* install the few extensions 
> that have been updated for GNOME 43, but what you *can't* do is use any 
> of the other new functionality on extensions.gnome.org. They used to 
> show you what those functions were, but they were greyed out (IIRC, one 
> of them allowed you to disable compatibility checks so that you could 
> install any extension - broken or not). I don't recall what the other 
> one was, because the options are removed for anyone not on the current API.

You don't need to keep explaining that. We can still discuss the
proposed release criterion even though the actual bug we have right now
possibly doesn't violate it.

I don't think I want to extend the proposal beyond basic "able to
install compatible extensions", at least not right now. But I still
think the criterion is probably a good idea.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Chris Murphy]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, at 3:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868
>
> it takes a minute to parse, but the tl;dr is that right now in Fedora
> 37, you can't go to https://extensions.gnome.org and install
> extensions.
>
> We agreed that it doesn't violate any existing release criteria, but to
> me, this is actually kind of a significant problem. Anecdotally, I get
> the impression that a lot of our Workstation users do use extensions,
> and not being able to easily install them on a fresh install would be a
> big problem for them, and make us look pretty bad.
>
> We have a handful of extensions packaged, though I'm not sure how well
> they're kept up to date. Aside from those, I don't know of any other
> really practical way for regular users to install extensions besides
> https://extensions.gnome.org . Is there one?
>
> Assuming for now that there isn't, I'm gonna propose this as a Final
> release criterion to see how people feel about it, to come after
> "Default panel functionality":
>
> #
>
> === GNOME extensions ===
>
> On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
> extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
> browser, after installing the required browser extension.
>
> #
>
> Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?
> Desktop folks, do you consider it "supportable"?

Discussed at the meeting today, and we definitely want this to work, and 
appreciate the bug report. We expect we'll be able to get it fixed for release. 
However, there's reluctance to broaden the scope of the criteria because our 
influence has limits, including the infrastructure aspects of extensions that 
we can't control (such as the web site itself). So we'd like to see this 
covered under existing criterion.


-- 
Chris Murphy
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Scott Beamer]

On 9/13/22 6:31 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:35 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:

=== GNOME extensions ===

On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
browser, after installing the required browser extension.

#

Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?

Assuming the desktop folks don't say "OMG there's no way we could
handle this", then I'm on board with making this a final criterion.
This is one of those "we'll get dragged in reviews if it doesn't work"
sorts of things.

The wording looks good to me. I'm trying to think of an escape hatch
we can give ourselves if it goes particularly sideways at some point,
but maybe the "difficult to fix" exception would be good enough.



As I explained previously to Adam, you *can* install the few extensions 
that have been updated for GNOME 43, but what you *can't* do is use any 
of the other new functionality on extensions.gnome.org. They used to 
show you what those functions were, but they were greyed out (IIRC, one 
of them allowed you to disable compatibility checks so that you could 
install any extension - broken or not). I don't recall what the other 
one was, because the options are removed for anyone not on the current API.


This message currently appears on the website with GNOME 42 in Fedora 36 
and 37.


"Your native host connector do not support following APIs: v6. Probably 
you should upgrade native host connector or install plugins for missing 
APIs. Referdocumentation 
for 
instructions."

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Scott Beamer]

On 9/12/22 3:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:11:43PM -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:

One thing I should mention, I checked and  only 14 of the 37 extensions that
can be installed from the Fedora repos are compatible with GNOME 43.  So if
Fedora 37 shipped today, I know of 23 packages that would be broken from the
get-go.

Also that API issue has been around for *weeks* in Fedora 36 and has been a
source of frustration for me.  It's not major, but it is frustrating.

Just as a side note there's a "disable-extension-version-validation"
setting which you can set to true and it will not do the extension
version checks:

gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation true

I'm familiar with that, but the new option on the website is especially 
convenient.


___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Ben Cotton]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:35 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:
>
> === GNOME extensions ===
>
> On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
> extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
> browser, after installing the required browser extension.
>
> #
>
> Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?

Assuming the desktop folks don't say "OMG there's no way we could
handle this", then I'm on board with making this a final criterion.
This is one of those "we'll get dragged in reviews if it doesn't work"
sorts of things.

The wording looks good to me. I'm trying to think of an escape hatch
we can give ourselves if it goes particularly sideways at some point,
but maybe the "difficult to fix" exception would be good enough.

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:11:43PM -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
> 
> One thing I should mention, I checked and  only 14 of the 37 extensions that
> can be installed from the Fedora repos are compatible with GNOME 43.  So if
> Fedora 37 shipped today, I know of 23 packages that would be broken from the
> get-go.
> 
> Also that API issue has been around for *weeks* in Fedora 36 and has been a
> source of frustration for me.  It's not major, but it is frustrating.

Just as a side note there's a "disable-extension-version-validation"
setting which you can set to true and it will not do the extension
version checks: 

gsettings set org.gnome.shell disable-extension-version-validation true

You can then see if an extension actually does work fine and just needs
it's version check updated, or if it really needs actual porting work to
the new version. 

Also, as an even more aside note here, the
gnome-shell-extension-openweather extension is one of the broken ones.
It needs porting to new libsoup. Turns out the upstream maintainer
ported it a while back, but because ubuntu hadn't moved to the new
libsoup, they just reverted it. :( Now that debian is moving to it also
perhaps they can re-land the port or have some kind of runtime check and
work with either.

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Scott Beamer]

On 9/12/22 2:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 14:39 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:

On 9/12/22 12:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

Hey folks!

So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868

it takes a minute to parse, but the tl;dr is that right now in Fedora
37, you can't go tohttps://extensions.gnome.org  and install
extensions.

Actually, that's not true.  You *can* install the few extensions that
have been updated for GNOME 43, but what you *can't* do is use any of
the other new functionality on extensions.gnome.org. They used to show
you what those functions were, but they were greyed out (IIRC, one of
them allowed you to disable compatibility checks so that you could
install any extension - broken or not). I don't recall what the other
one was, because the options are removed for anyone not on the current API.

This message currently appears on the website with GNOME 42 in Fedora 36
and 37.

"Your native host connector do not support following APIs: v6. Probably
you should upgrade native host connector or install plugins for missing
APIs. Referdocumentation
for
instructions."

Oh, yes, you're right. That does make the bug less critical indeed. I
guess it happened to be the case that none of the three or four random
extensions I tested with is updated to 43, so that's why I thought the
bug prevented installing them...



One thing I should mention, I checked and  only 14 of the 37 extensions 
that can be installed from the Fedora repos are compatible with GNOME 
43.  So if Fedora 37 shipped today, I know of 23 packages that would be 
broken from the get-go.


Also that API issue has been around for *weeks* in Fedora 36 and has 
been a source of frustration for me.  It's not major, but it is frustrating.

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 14:39 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
> On 9/12/22 12:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey folks!
> > 
> > So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868
> > 
> > it takes a minute to parse, but the tl;dr is that right now in Fedora
> > 37, you can't go tohttps://extensions.gnome.org  and install
> > extensions.
> 
> Actually, that's not true.  You *can* install the few extensions that 
> have been updated for GNOME 43, but what you *can't* do is use any of 
> the other new functionality on extensions.gnome.org. They used to show 
> you what those functions were, but they were greyed out (IIRC, one of 
> them allowed you to disable compatibility checks so that you could 
> install any extension - broken or not). I don't recall what the other 
> one was, because the options are removed for anyone not on the current API.
> 
> This message currently appears on the website with GNOME 42 in Fedora 36 
> and 37.
> 
> "Your native host connector do not support following APIs: v6. Probably 
> you should upgrade native host connector or install plugins for missing 
> APIs. Referdocumentation 
> for
>  
> instructions."

Oh, yes, you're right. That does make the bug less critical indeed. I
guess it happened to be the case that none of the three or four random
extensions I tested with is updated to 43, so that's why I thought the
bug prevented installing them...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Scott Beamer]

On 9/12/22 12:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

Hey folks!

So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868

it takes a minute to parse, but the tl;dr is that right now in Fedora
37, you can't go tohttps://extensions.gnome.org  and install
extensions.


Actually, that's not true.  You *can* install the few extensions that 
have been updated for GNOME 43, but what you *can't* do is use any of 
the other new functionality on extensions.gnome.org. They used to show 
you what those functions were, but they were greyed out (IIRC, one of 
them allowed you to disable compatibility checks so that you could 
install any extension - broken or not). I don't recall what the other 
one was, because the options are removed for anyone not on the current API.


This message currently appears on the website with GNOME 42 in Fedora 36 
and 37.


"Your native host connector do not support following APIs: v6. Probably 
you should upgrade native host connector or install plugins for missing 
APIs. Referdocumentation 
for 
instructions."



___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Scott Beamer]

On 9/12/22 1:12 PM, Tommy Nguyen wrote:

On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 12:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

Hey folks!

So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868


If I may offer my opinion as a layperson/end-user... that name change
seems confusing and a "backwards-incompatible" change.
Documentation/instructions will need to be updated, Firejail profiles
and other scripts will need to be updated as well. Unless there's a
compat package or the binary/dbus names won't change (I'm not really
familiar with how this all works).


That name  chances is upstream.  The GNOME Project has changed the name 
and updated the API with new functionality.


Fedore needs  to follow through, with not just the name change, but also 
with the updated API, in order for everything on extensions.gnome.org to 
work.

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Tommy Nguyen]

On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 12:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
> 
> So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868
> 

If I may offer my opinion as a layperson/end-user... that name change
seems confusing and a "backwards-incompatible" change.
Documentation/instructions will need to be updated, Firejail profiles
and other scripts will need to be updated as well. Unless there's a
compat package or the binary/dbus names won't change (I'm not really
familiar with how this all works).

I agree it should be a blocker. I personally install my extensions from
the repos and they tend to lag behind a few weeks/months. It is not a
big issue, except when for example an extension update fixes a major
bug or crash, in which case it's more desirable to get it from the
website. Due to extensions typically breaking upon new GNOME releases,
the majority of users will want their extensions to be the latest
version possible unless it is an extension maintained by GNOME devs
themselves.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[pmkel...@frontier.com]

On 9/12/22 3:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:


We have a handful of extensions packaged, though I'm not sure how well
they're kept up to date. Aside from those, I don't know of any other
really practical way for regular users to install extensions besides
https://extensions.gnome.org . Is there one?


My uers and I need Gnome extensions.

The ones used here are in the Fedora 37 repo, that's where I get them, 
but there are some that won't run. The Extensions app. says they are not 
compatable with the current version of Gnome. I've looked into this for 
the Extension Freon. Freon actually queries the Gnome verion and 
compares it to the version in a file that comes with the extensiion. 
I've been able to fix the issue for F36 with:


sudo sed -i 's/40.0/42.2/g' 
/usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/freon@UshakovVasilii_Github.yahoo.com/metadata.json


I've been waiting to see what the Gnome version in F37 will be.

This may be the problem with the others that won't run, but I haven't 
had a chance to look into that yet.


I think the intension of this is to ensure that someone has tested the 
extension to be sure it works then they put the current Gnome version in 
the file to enable it to work. Of course this little patch bypasses that 
assurance.


Have a Great Day!

Pat tablepc





Assuming for now that there isn't, I'm gonna propose this as a Final
release criterion to see how people feel about it, to come after
"Default panel functionality":

#

=== GNOME extensions ===

On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
browser, after installing the required browser extension.

#

Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?
Desktop folks, do you consider it "supportable"?

Thanks!

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:35 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:
>
> Hey folks!
>
> So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868
>
> it takes a minute to parse, but the tl;dr is that right now in Fedora
> 37, you can't go to https://extensions.gnome.org and install
> extensions.
>
> We agreed that it doesn't violate any existing release criteria, but to
> me, this is actually kind of a significant problem. Anecdotally, I get
> the impression that a lot of our Workstation users do use extensions,
> and not being able to easily install them on a fresh install would be a
> big problem for them, and make us look pretty bad.
>
> We have a handful of extensions packaged, though I'm not sure how well
> they're kept up to date. Aside from those, I don't know of any other
> really practical way for regular users to install extensions besides
> https://extensions.gnome.org . Is there one?
>
> Assuming for now that there isn't, I'm gonna propose this as a Final
> release criterion to see how people feel about it, to come after
> "Default panel functionality":
>
> #
>
> === GNOME extensions ===
>
> On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
> extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
> browser, after installing the required browser extension.
>
> #
>
> Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?
> Desktop folks, do you consider it "supportable"?
>

I think it's important to block the final release on. And as a user, I
can't use GNOME without working extensions, so it *must* be
supportable by us. So if we can't do it, we should block the release.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Release criteria proposal: require GNOME Shell extension install/remove to work

[Adam Williamson]

Hey folks!

So a bug came up at today's blocker review meeting:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868

it takes a minute to parse, but the tl;dr is that right now in Fedora
37, you can't go to https://extensions.gnome.org and install
extensions.

We agreed that it doesn't violate any existing release criteria, but to
me, this is actually kind of a significant problem. Anecdotally, I get
the impression that a lot of our Workstation users do use extensions,
and not being able to easily install them on a fresh install would be a
big problem for them, and make us look pretty bad.

We have a handful of extensions packaged, though I'm not sure how well
they're kept up to date. Aside from those, I don't know of any other
really practical way for regular users to install extensions besides
https://extensions.gnome.org . Is there one?

Assuming for now that there isn't, I'm gonna propose this as a Final
release criterion to see how people feel about it, to come after
"Default panel functionality":

#

=== GNOME extensions ===

On Fedora Workstation, it must be possible to install and remove
extensions by visiting https://extensions.gnome.org in the default web
browser, after installing the required browser extension.

#

Do folks think this is important enough to block Final release on?
Desktop folks, do you consider it "supportable"?

Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue