Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (626 mails)

[Lukas Ocilka <lukas.ocilka@xxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
> > > It's just postponing the "problem". :-)
> > For me it rather seems to "offer a solution if there is a problem". In
> > an ideal world, there is no problem to solve, in the other ones we will
> > provide a possibility to correct what was wrong.
> >
> > BTW: there is still a solution if an automatic proposal fails:
> > Installation can still check what has failed and offer user manual
> > tuning in that case (at the end of the first stage).
>
> Now I'm confused. Let's try to explain :-)
>
> If the installer will allow the user to tune everything at the end of
> the first stage in case something "goes wrong", I don't see the
> improvement. It's just before the reboot instead then after.

Currently, the second stage configuration is moved to the end of the
first stage but it doesn't provide any feedback to a user.

The current implementation is: 1.) make a proposal 2.) write it (both
silently). First, what I plan, is to provide some feedback by running
this functionality using a progress SCR agent that enables inter process
communication.

The (questionable) improvement now is that you don't have to:
a) wait for the second stage to have your hardware, network
   configured ...
b) click [Next] in every proposal or other dialogs (because second stage
   just doesn't exist) and thus there is no [Next] button ...

> I also wonder how you can check that things like printer, network, tv
> card work before you have a complete installation, so I don't understand
> how you can "check" what failed.

I can check whether some hardware was found but that we were unable to
find a driver for it, for instance. Proposals return special `warning or
`blocker flags in case of problem.

In these cases, we can re-enable those steps where problems occurred and
let user choose what to do.

> To add some consideration, I think that the idea of cleaning up the
> installation process, which was considered too long, and not too complex
> by users, at least in my experience on IRC, is good. But it seems to me
> that the proposed solutions add complexity instead of removing it, by
> just moving configuration options to a more hidden location or
> postponing the configuration.

Not necessary, just for developers :)
Users can choose whether they want to go the auto- or the manual-way.

> Anyway, I hope to see the new version in action in alpha 3, so we can
> talk again after a test :-)

Hmm, deadline is Friday :) We shall see...

Bye
Lukas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH1a5kVSqMdRCqTiwRApyhAJ0fOqcoT8/dlTAQzTpFs1hqFox7+gCeOcii
rGQgetLAvVCO49fglvygjFw=
=r+AF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx