intrigeri:
> sajolida wrote (09 Mar 2016 13:04:11 GMT) :
>> I'll do that in #11210.
>
> Thanks a lot! Two questions:
>
> * Any ETA?
Nope, sorry :(
> * May we explicitly expand the scope of that ticket to include the
> Tor Status extension? I assume that's what you meant since you
> linked to my email that was about both.
Yes. For me (and probably for most users) Onion Circuits and the Tor
status extension are pieces of the same beast.
>> The integration of Onion Circuits is 2.2 came too late and too suddenly
>> for me to have time to do any work on the documentation or UX (I was at
>> Tor dev starting from Feb 26). I understand that your intention was to
>> get rid of #10576 but I'd like to make it clear that the integration
>> process for this feature was not so good.
>
> Yes.
>
> Since 2.0~rc1 or something, a few of us have been raising #10576
> repeatedly to my attention (definitely with good intentions but it
> doesn't really matter here). It's been the source of a growing
> frustration and failure feeling, that I had to do something about.
> It felt like integrating Onion Circuits was my only chance to
> substantially improve things on #10576 before Tails 2.4, scheduled in
> 3 months, so I totally jumped on it, when the remaining blockers
> (mainly renaming the software) were resolved.
I completely understand this.
> Hadn't we previously discussed at length what needed to be done, and
> how it should look like, I would definitely not have pushed this
> change in such a hurry.
>
> Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree that the process was not good,
> and it should not become the norm.
Full ack and I'm glad we agree on this. But I'm also fine with allowing
ourselves to do this kind of things on rare occasions when we think the
upsides outweigh the downsides.
> Even with whatever personal reasons I had to rush things up, an
> excellent email discussion before anything has been implemented can't
> possibly replace a good code/UX process with some room for feedback
> from all parties before shipping to users. And indeed, I acknowledge
> that in another similar situation we've seen recently (the branch that
> integrated the IA into the current doc), changes proposed at the last
> minute were rejected precisely because there hadn't been enough room
> for such feedback, considering the importance of the changes.
Hey, that's right! I hadn't do this comparison earlier!
But the rejection of my IA branch is too far away now to hold griefs :)
