Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)
Hi Cyril,
On 20.12.2016 15:01, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> (2016-12-20):
>> As I already wrote several times: before you do so, please show some
>> evidence that in the half year that the current version of the installer
>> containing a blends selection has added an unacceptable amount of
>> confusion and that we can't solve that by changing the wording or such.
>
> Having more choices means more confusion. Look at any UX studies, or
> install parties.
>
> Also, choices aren't consistent depending on installation media, which
> doesn't help.
>
> You might call it me being weird, but this is how we've tried to balance
> choices in D-I for a few years (10+ AFAICT), as already confirmed by
> Christian earlier. The addition of various blends in the path of all
> users shifts this balance, in the wrong direction.
And by how much? If it is just a very little bit, this could be acceptable.
It seems clear by the whole discussion that tasksel is *already* quite
confusing to the users in an unacceptable way, and that we should change
it in buster. So, whatever we do now is just the last step in a dead end.
BTW, adding LXQT to the desktops also goes into the wrong direction,
since it adds another choice. This shows, that you don't take the "wrong
direction" argument serious yourself (resp. Christian, who did the patch
in the tasksel git).
>> We already have more that 5700 popcon-counted installations with the
>> blends selection in the installer. This should give some base for
>> that.
>
> Surely, people asking for blends are using blends selection. That's nice
> and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to dispute that. But that shouldn't
> make d-i more confusing for others.
So, please *show* that the current solution does add confusion in an
unacceptable way. Show for example installation reports. Or something
else which shows clearly that the current concrete solution in not
acceptable. Based on the concrete experience of the current installer.
And, I didn't just search through the astronomy related pages for
issues, but tried to catch any report for the new installer -- and
didn't find anything.
Again: the installer is there to test for 6 months now, but if it is
inacceptably bad: why are there no complaints?
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: