Project

General

Profile

Feature #14575

Feature #14568: Additional Software Packages

Write technical design doc for Additional Software

Added by u about 1 year ago. Updated 14 days ago.

Status:
In Progress
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
-
Target version:
Start date:
08/30/2017
Due date:
03/15/2018
% Done:

60%

QA Check:
Dev Needed
Feature Branch:
bugfix/14575-asp-design-doc
Type of work:
Contributors documentation
Starter:
Affected tool:
Additional Software Packages

Description

Due: February 28th 2018 (B2).
Probably to be done during the GUI and UX sprint.

Associated revisions

Revision a3aebf4a (diff)
Added by alant about 2 months ago

ASP: draft design documentation

Will-fix: #14575

Revision 00c2deb2 (diff)
Added by alant about 2 months ago

ASP: complete design documentation

Will-fix: #14575

Revision 381c11ba (diff)
Added by alant about 2 months ago

ASP: add gitweb links to design documentation

Will-fix: #14575

Revision effeac27 (diff)
Added by alant 29 days ago

ASP design doc: fix title

Will-fix: #14575

Revision aee092c7 (diff)
Added by alant 29 days ago

ASP design doc: remove implementation details

Will-fix: #14575

History

#3 Updated by BitingBird about 1 year ago

  • Target version set to 2018

#4 Updated by u about 1 year ago

  • Affected tool set to Additional Software Packages

#5 Updated by u about 1 year ago

  • Target version changed from 2018 to Tails_3.6

#6 Updated by alant 8 months ago

  • Due date changed from 02/28/2018 to 03/15/2018
  • Target version changed from Tails_3.6 to Tails_3.7
  • Blueprint set to https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/additional_software_packages/gui

Technical design doc is being drafted in the blueprint at https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/additional_software_packages/gui. It will be finalised after our code sprint during march.

Inspiration: https://tails.boum.org/contribute/design/persistence/

#7 Updated by bertagaz 5 months ago

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.7 to Tails_3.8

#8 Updated by intrigeri 3 months ago

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.8 to Tails_3.9

#9 Updated by alant about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
  • Feature Branch set to feature/14594-asp-gui

See contribute/design/additional_software_packages.mdwn.

#10 Updated by u about 2 months ago

  • QA Check set to Dev Needed

alant wrote:

See contribute/design/additional_software_packages.mdwn.

This file is not present in feature/14594-asp-gui nor master. So I cannot review it.

#11 Updated by u about 2 months ago

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.9 to Tails_3.10

I'm fine with postponing this part to 3.10.

#12 Updated by alant about 2 months ago

u wrote:

alant wrote:

See contribute/design/additional_software_packages.mdwn.

This file is not present in feature/14594-asp-gui nor master. So I cannot review it.

Yes it is :

https://git.tails.boum.org/tails/tree/wiki/src/contribute/design/additional_software_packages.mdwn?h=feature/14594-asp-gui

#13 Updated by alant about 2 months ago

  • Assignee changed from alant to u
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

#14 Updated by u about 1 month ago

I must have pulled from another git repo accidentally.

#15 Updated by u about 1 month ago

  • Assignee changed from u to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

I've polished this a bit in 297fd54fc1676ea83a1c73f529858f9b9a3350ec.

Intrigeri: I'm not sure what to do to get this merged?

#16 Updated by u about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed

#17 Updated by intrigeri about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from Fix committed to In Progress
  • QA Check changed from Pass to Ready for QA

Intrigeri: I'm not sure what to do to get this merged?

This :)

#18 Updated by intrigeri about 1 month ago

I've merged the branch up to 297fd54fc1676ea83a1c73f529858f9b9a3350ec. Note that Alan is using the exact same branch to push WIP stuff that's not ready for merging, so we've been lucky you've pushed your changes before he did so I could merge them. In the future I suggest using different branches for different kinds of work that has a different review/merge cycle :)

I'll now take a quick look at the design doc to see if it's up to our standards.

#19 Updated by intrigeri about 1 month ago

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to alant
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed
  • Feature Branch deleted (feature/14594-asp-gui)

It looks good!

  • wiki/src/contribute/design/persistence.mdwn already had a section about ASP. Please de-duplicate and point to the new page from there (it's currently not referenced anywhere).
  • "design documentation" in the page title is not consistent with the rest of our design doc (and arguably duplicate info anyway)
  • Please now use a dedicated branch for this work so the various things you're working on don't block each other.
  • Some of the text paraphrases very precisely the implementation in a low-level way, which will be hard to keep up-to-date. Better stick to high-level descriptions of the general design, with pointers to the up-to-date code.
  • A few broken links, look for config/chroot_config/ and test your links before the next round of review :)

#20 Updated by alant 29 days ago

  • Feature Branch set to bugfix/14575-asp-design-doc

#21 Updated by alant 29 days ago

  • Assignee changed from alant to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Info Needed

I belive I fixed everything you suggested but:

  • Some of the text paraphrases very precisely the implementation in a low-level way, which will be hard to keep up-to-date. Better stick to high-level descriptions of the general design, with pointers to the up-to-date code.

I simplified one item, but I don't see how to cut more withour removing references that I find useful to understand hos it works and especially what files to look at. Examples?

#22 Updated by intrigeri 25 days ago

I simplified one item, but I don't see how to cut more withour removing references that I find useful to understand hos it works and especially what files to look at. Examples?

Sure. I'll look into this during the 3.10 cycle.

#23 Updated by intrigeri 14 days ago

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to alant
  • % Done changed from 50 to 60
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Dev Needed

alant wrote:

I belive I fixed everything you suggested but:

  • Some of the text paraphrases very precisely the implementation in a low-level way, which will be hard to keep up-to-date. Better stick to high-level descriptions of the general design, with pointers to the up-to-date code.

I simplified one item, but I don't see how to cut more withour removing references that I find useful to understand hos it works and especially what files to look at. Examples?

Sure, here are bits I think should not be in such a document:

  • is `WantedBy=desktop.target`
  • if the configuration file […] is not empty
  • It is a oneshot service
  • the bits about 99-zz-install-ASP-DPKG-hooks
  • I'm stopping here :)

See what I mean?

Other than that:

  • I've merged the current branch into master because it's clearly better than what was there.
  • missing word in using options prevent questions?

Also available in: Atom PDF