Feature #10280

Improve instruction workflow to activate bridges

Added by sajolida 2015-09-26 08:46:08 . Updated 2020-04-15 06:01:52 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Tor configuration
Target version:
Tails_2.3
Start date:
2015-09-26
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
doc/10280-bridge-activation-workflow
Type of work:
End-user documentation
Blueprint:

Starter:
1
Affected tool:
Welcome Screen
Deliverable for:

Description

Bridges are explained in /first_steps/startup_options/bridge_mode but the “How to use bridges in Tails” on this page doesn’t actually explain how to do that but rather points to /first_steps/startup_options/network_configuration. We could use an inline to insert the relevant content in both places.

Subtasks

Related issues

Blocks Tails - Bug #9752: Update bridges documentation with user feedback Rejected 2015-07-18

History

#1 Updated by sajolida 2015-09-26 09:04:12

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

Applied in changeset commit:f62b63fde91762b13ba2d1b886715b44fd28d163.

#2 Updated by sajolida 2015-09-26 09:34:17

  • Status changed from In Progress to Confirmed
  • Assignee changed from sajolida to BitingBird
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to doc/10280-bridge-activation-workflow

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2015-09-28 02:22:37

> We could use an inline to insert the relevant content in both places.

JFTR, I’m quite concerned to see more and more inline usage added all around the place, while at the same time we very well know that it’s seriously buggy in some cases, and we have no clear plan to fix that situation. Now, I don’t remember exactly in which specific case it’s buggy, so it could be that in this instance it’s just fine :)

#4 Updated by sajolida 2015-09-28 09:22:59

Right, but we’re going to use inline more and more and I don’t how to do this differently. For example, I expect the Installation Assistant to use inlines for a huge majority of its content. It’s this or duplication.

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2015-10-01 19:03:29

FTR I’m not convinced by this conclusion wrt. inline, but at the moment I don’t have time/energy to raise my concerns in the right place, nor to be more creative than “It’s this or duplication”, so all I can do is hope that it works out fine for these new use cases. Sorry.

#6 Updated by sajolida 2015-10-07 19:42:21

See also the files linked from Feature #10309#note-2 to understand better how we’re going to rely on inlines to factorize instructions in the installation assistant.

#7 Updated by BitingBird 2015-11-17 09:57:52

  • Target version changed from Tails_1.7 to 246

#8 Updated by sajolida 2015-11-27 04:41:03

  • Target version changed from 246 to Tails_2.0

#9 Updated by BitingBird 2016-01-27 16:34:47

  • Assignee deleted (BitingBird)
  • Target version changed from Tails_2.0 to Tails_2.2

I’m officially not going to work on that, someone else should do the review.

#10 Updated by sajolida 2016-01-28 14:38:08

  • Target version deleted (Tails_2.2)

Dropping the target version until someone volunteers then.

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-29 15:04:28

> Dropping the target version until someone volunteers then.

There’s a branch ready to be reviewed since 4 months. If you find nobody else to review your work, I suggest you assign it to the RM, and set some target version back.

#12 Updated by sajolida 2016-01-31 10:34:47

  • Assignee set to sajolida
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

I’ll check what’s going on with this and propose someone else to review it.

#13 Updated by sajolida 2016-02-01 11:32:18

  • Target version set to Tails_2.2

#14 Updated by sajolida 2016-03-07 15:11:57

  • Target version deleted (Tails_2.2)

#15 Updated by sajolida 2016-03-14 18:09:55

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to anonym
  • Target version set to Tails_2.3
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

So I merge again master into this branch, fixed some conflicts, and I still think it’s ready and should be merged.

Assigning to anonym for review and merge as this has been ready for 6 months and I’d like to avoid additional back-and-forth before merge.

#16 Updated by sajolida 2016-03-17 17:55:09

  • blocks Bug #9752: Update bridges documentation with user feedback added

#17 Updated by anonym 2016-04-12 05:00:13

  • Status changed from Confirmed to Fix committed
  • Assignee deleted (anonym)
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Merged, since it is a clear improvement, even thought is uses translated inlined markdown, which I’ve been taught is bad.

#18 Updated by anonym 2016-04-26 09:13:50

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved

#19 Updated by intrigeri 2020-04-15 06:01:52

  • Affected tool changed from Greeter to Welcome Screen