Re: [Tails-dev] Please test incremental upgrades (from 0.22~…

Borrar esta mensaxe

Responder a esta mensaxe
Autor: intrigeri
Data:  
Para: The Tails public development discussion list
Temas novos: [Tails-dev] Last steps toward enabling incremental upgrades by default [Was: Please test incremental upgrades (from 0.22~rc1 to 0.22~rc2)]
Asunto: Re: [Tails-dev] Please test incremental upgrades (from 0.22~rc1 to 0.22~rc2)
Hi,

sajolida@??? wrote (17 Dec 2013 09:25:36 GMT) :
> intrigeri:
>>> 2. No feedback while looking for upgrade.

[...]
> Then, see:
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6500


Fixed in Tails-IUK 0.12.

>>> 3. The "click link" in the dialog messages are unclear.

[...]
>> Is your current proposal:
>>
>> copy <a href='%{details_url}s'>%{details_url}s</a> and open it in
>> the browser to learn more.
>>
>> ... or anything else? I'm happy to change this, once I know why
>> and how.


> That's it. In which commit is that? I can't find it...


As said above, I was waiting to understand your proposal first, which
is now the case. Now tracked by #6511.

>>> 4. The buttons labels should be more explicit than "Yes" and "No".

[...]
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6501


Fixed in Tails-IUK 0.12.

>>> 5. Give an ETA while downloading.
>>> It is good to have a progress bar while downloading the IUK, but it
>>> would be much better to have an ETA.
>>
>> Most ETA's I see displayed are seriously wrong, so I'm not convinced
>> it generally helps at all UX-wise. Is it really considered as a best
>> practice these days to display an ETA along with progress bars for
>> long operations?


> Seems like GNOME recommends that: [...]


Thank you!

>>> How hard would that be?
>>
>> I think that having "an ETA" displayed while downloading is easy).
>> The harder part is making it accurate enough to be marginaly useful.
>> There might be good algorithms available to do that, but the software
>> I use apparently don't use these :p


> Don't kill yourself over that. As an alternative, what about displaying
> the progress of the size of download ("Downloading upgrade: XX of
> XXXMB") and a clock saying "Elapsed time: X:XX"?


Why not. As I said on the ticket, that's blocked by #6461.

>>> 6. Give an explicit title to each dialog.

[...]
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6503


Fixed in Tails-IUK 0.12.

>>> 8. Hide the details of the error by default.

[...]
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6505


Flagged for phase four (#6508), that is likely for 0.23 if we enable
the whole thing by default in 0.22.1.

>>> 9. Display a summary of the documentation page in error dialogs.

[...]
> I'll do that as part of the documentation work. I'll have to write new
> pages, review all the error pages and probably propose changes on the
> error messages themselves.


Great.

>>> 11. Do not disable the networking without warning.

[...]
> Ok, so let's go for the first option then:
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6506


Cool (moved to a subtask: #6512). Then I'll integrate the phrasing
into the UI (#6506). Any idea when this will be ready?

>>> because I can't seen any point update in our calendar until Tails
>>> 1.1. Rock'n roll!
>>
>> I'm starting to think that we should not prevent ourselves from
>> providing incremental upgrades for major releases as well. I've not
>> dared updating the design doc in this direction yet. I propose we try
>> this for every release until 1.0, and see how it goes in practice.
>>
>> (Presumably, the 1.0..1.1 diff will be that huge that it's useless to
>> publish an IUK for it.)


> That's a good plan. You already told me that the IUK mechanism could
> pill-up a bunch of upgrades. But we don't really know how many.


I've tried with two IUKs, not more.

> Still we
> can try to have an IUK for each release until Tails 1.1 which is a pile
> of 3 IUK (0.22.1, 0.23, 1.0) and see how things go.


Yeah.

Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc