ServerPapercutsSpec

Revision 1 as of 2009-11-20 20:08:48

Clear message

Summary

This should provide an overview of the issue/functionality/change proposed here. Focus here on what will actually be DONE, summarising that so that other people don't have to read the whole spec. See also CategorySpec for examples.

Release Note

This section should include a paragraph describing the end-user impact of this change. It is meant to be included in the release notes of the first release in which it is implemented. (Not all of these will actually be included in the release notes, at the release manager's discretion; but writing them is a useful exercise.)

It is mandatory.

Rationale

This should cover the _why_: why is this change being proposed, what justifies it, where we see this justified.

User stories

Assumptions

Design

You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.

Implementation

This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:

UI Changes

Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this

Code Changes

Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.

Migration

Include:

  • data migration, if any
  • redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
  • how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.

Test/Demo Plan

It's important that we are able to test new features, and demonstrate them to users. Use this section to describe a short plan that anybody can follow that demonstrates the feature is working. This can then be used during testing, and to show off after release. Please add an entry to http://testcases.qa.ubuntu.com/Coverage/NewFeatures for tracking test coverage.

This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.

Unresolved issues

This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.

BoF agenda and discussion

UDS discussion notes

Session purpose

Some packages in main ship with bad default configurations, weird ways of enabling them or are altogether unfriendly. Most of the time the behavior is inherited from Debian and never questioned, while we should fix them so that they just work[tm]. We should take the opportunity of the LTS cycle to review main packages for such issues and fix them. This session is about discussing the process to follow and potentially identify some targets.

Relevant issues

  • "Server experience" issues, easy to fix
  • Examples
    • Bad default configurations
    • Packages difficult to configure (too long to go from install to run)
    • Packages not working well together (while making sense to be used together)
    • Anything requiring tedious or repetitive manual work

To do this we need some fixed criteria for acceptance as a 'server paper cut'.

  • how big a bug counts as a paper cut
    • size/time etc ?
  • we should pick clear classes of bugs to attack
  • usability/user experience sounds like a clear area
  • admin steps from install to running is often 'complex'
  • we may not be the right people to even see a server paper cut as we know how things work
  • consistancy is a big driver on desktop paper-cuts

Goals

  • Usability improvements, particularly for frustrating things
  • Small chunks of work ("rhythmic, can do over and over again")
  • Community involvement
  • consistency
  • minimize our delta with debian

Example small usability improvements

  • command-not-found improvements
    • add more keywords
    • note that command-not-found only works when someone tries to run something, which doesn't really help when you don't have it installed and are looking for what to install
    • perhaps we need a 'whereis <foo>' which essentially does the search and output

  • tab-completion for more utilities
  • init script status action
  • upstartification of more init scripts
  • links to the server guide in the package description
  • man pages (missing or out of date)
    • enhance manpages.ubuntu.com to crowdsource manpage editing/creation
      • man pages as wiki pages
      • man pages as a remote browsable object either through the web and command line interface
  • broken symlinks
  • community involvement may be enhanced by this project as things are small
  • can EC2 server help bring people to the testing/papercuts effort
  • package descriptions (also with Software Center)
  • picking package names (we don't have software center on server to help)
    • or methods of finding the right package (apt-cache search isn't very good)
    • Software center tags are the analogy on the desktop -- command line version?
    • can we have something similar to command-not-found /usr/sbin stylee
    • People don't really use tasksel (had to remind them in the MOTD)
    • command-not-found could hint the user to use tasksel
  • ubuntu-server-tips
  • fix default config files that lack inline documentation if there are any
  • daemons you have installed but that don't setup their own init scripts
    • eg mediawiki requires you to uncomment a line before it's published
    • cut down on extra steps (eg edit /etc/default AFTER editing config file even if it was all comments)
    • pointing you to documentation at install time where such configuration is needed
  • maintainer scripts that blow up because the init script failed
    • packages that fail to remove because they can't shut down
  • Apache needs lots of work to do SSL. It should be out-of the box. Maybe create a dummy test cert, etc.
  • samba fails to upgrade if you remove /etc/samba/smb.conf
  • some things may not be papercuts: making the right software to install easy to find is a larger project
    • it may be worth doing this to get to a point where tagging s/w becomes a paper cut
  • more complete "purges" for some packages
  • byobu notification for apport crash (*)

Implementation

  • Start with a survey or discussion to define criteria / examples ?
    • 3 criteria: difficulty, benefit, would you volunteer?

Criteria (Potential)

  • small and quick to fix
  • Potential for acceptance in debian. (really??)

Risks

  • increasing the delta with debian on default configuration changes


CategorySpec