unity-design team mailing list archive

[mac_v <drkvi-a@xxxxxxxxx>]

Alex Launi wrote:
> 
> We know we have updates before we get to gdm, during the previous
> session we checked and found updates, we took note of this state but
> wait to take any action until next gdm. 

First of all you painted a story saying:
devs had update ready in the night and the user got the update in the
morning! That is misleading !

BUT assuming that the update state was checked before:
1: Why wait? What is the advantage in deferring the update?
2: Why defer a security update to the next boot?
3: What about users who do not shutdown the systems? no updates for them?
4: What if the [non-security]update to a program is deferred to the next
boot and the program crashes, causing work loss?

If the propsal for the above is that the system waits [x hrs/days]
before reminding the user of the update.
5: what is the use of having updates scheduled for boot?
6: what is the acceptable time limit to defer an update?[the update may
be critical to the program the user needs, which has been crashing,
would the user want this update immediately?]

> 
> You DO get on with your work, you just start the update process first,
> and then move on.
> 

What you need to remember is that work may involve net browsing, so
speeds are hampered during the work. The user might mot have planned on
using the net , but needs to browse for research , so his only option is
to cancel the on going update?

 also if the user is allowed to work and it prompts for reboot, isnt
that a break in work flow? he may choose to do it later , but the main
purpose of the proposal does not achieve its goal .

cheers,
mac_v