Re: GNOME Shell Modal Dialog Tweakage

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 12:08 +0000, Allan Day wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Andre Klapper <ak-47 gmx net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 18:36 +0000, Allan Day wrote:
> >> And yet there is also an understanding that minor cosmetic changes
> >> don't need a UI freeze exception.
> >
> > https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointThree#Schedule says "No UI changes may
> > be made without approval from the release-team and notification to
> > gnome-doc-list@".
> > I don't see any "major" or "minor" mentioned so I disagree with that
> > interpretation, plus subjects/individuals would have to define "minor"
> > and would likely differ on it with others.
> > => Just ask first, we don't bite (I think). :)
> 
> If you expect any UI change, no matter how small or insignificant, to
> require freeze break approval, then I suggest that the release team
> communicates that fact to the rest of the development community.
> 
> I'd also add that one sentence is not an adequate amount of guidance
> for this process.

The sentence looks clear to me. It doesn't say "maybe" or "only major"
or "at your discretion". It says "No UI changes".

"No UI changes may be made without approval from the release-team and
notification to gnome-doc-list@"

Compare to:

"no string changes may be made without confirmation from the l10n team
(gnome-i18n@) and notification to both the release team and the GDP
(gnome-doc-list@)"

We don't add commas to string without approval, just because it's only
a small string change. So where's the confusion? What's the difference
between these two rules?

Now, if we want to define and write down an exact list of things we do
not require approval for (but still require notification), I'm OK with
that. But I'm not OK with a hundred module maintainers just guessing
at what kind of changes they can make.

--
Shaun