Feature #14579

Tell the Technical Writers what part of our doc needs to be updated for Buster

Added by intrigeri 2017-08-30 18:05:32 . Updated 2019-08-30 20:17:46 .

Status:
Confirmed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
Start date:
2017-08-30
Due date:
% Done:

50%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/Debian_testing#doc-update

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

… if we decided to release Tails based on Buster soon.

Files

tails-amd64-3.0.build-manifest (129745 B) anonym, 2017-10-09 12:41:02
tails-amd64-3.2.build-manifest (130075 B) anonym, 2017-10-09 12:41:03

Subtasks

Related issues

Blocked by Tails - Feature #14578: Decide when we want to release Tails based on Debian Bullseye Confirmed 2017-08-30
Blocked by Tails - Feature #14791: Design how the Foundations Team will tell the Technical Writers what part of our doc needs to be updated Resolved 2017-10-05

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-30 18:05:52

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-30 18:06:35

  • blocked by Feature #14578: Decide when we want to release Tails based on Debian Bullseye added

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2017-08-30 18:06:56

  • Subject changed from Tell the Foundations Team what needs to be updated for Buster to Tell the Technical Writers what part of our doc needs to be updated for Buster

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-24 09:37:45

  • blocked by deleted (Feature #13234: Core work 2017Q3: Foundations Team)

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-24 09:38:02

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2017-10-05 11:51:31

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 0 to 10
  • Blueprint set to https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/Debian_testing#doc-update

#7 Updated by intrigeri 2017-10-05 15:44:07

  • blocked by Feature #14791: Design how the Foundations Team will tell the Technical Writers what part of our doc needs to be updated added

#8 Updated by anonym 2017-10-09 12:43:21

I implemented the tool specified on the blueprint in commit:b80047222b4ce5f3634c5ae762aec7aeb07e0a99 which is already pushed to master. For convenience’s sake, attached you’ll find the needed .build-manifests to run the command below:

bin/doc-impacted-by 3.0 3.2 tails-amd64-3.0.build-manifest tails-amd64-3.2.build-manifest

which should give this output:

The following documentation pages need investigation:

wiki/src/doc/advanced_topics/virtualization/virtualbox.mdwn
- Updated package: virtualbox-guest-utils: 5.1.22-dfsg-1 → 5.1.28-dfsg-1
- Updated package: virtualbox-guest-x11: 5.1.22-dfsg-1 → 5.1.28-dfsg-1

wiki/src/doc/first_steps/accessibility.mdwn
- Changes in file: config/chroot_local-includes/etc/dconf/db/local.d/00_Tails_defaults
- Introduced package: caribou

wiki/src/doc/first_steps/persistence/configure.mdwn
- Updated package: tails-persistence-setup: 1.1.9-1 → 1.1.11-1

wiki/src/doc/first_steps/persistence/delete.mdwn
- Updated package: tails-persistence-setup: 1.1.9-1 → 1.1.11-1

wiki/src/doc/first_steps/persistence/use.mdwn
- Updated package: tails-greeter: 1.0.2 → 1.0.3

wiki/src/doc/first_steps/startup_options.mdwn
- Changes in file: config/binary_local-hooks/40-include_syslinux_in_ISO_filesystem
- Changes in file: config/chroot_local-includes/etc/dconf/db/local.d/00_Tails_defaults
- Updated package: tails-greeter: 1.0.2 → 1.0.3

wiki/src/doc/first_steps/startup_options/administration_password.mdwn
- Updated package: tails-greeter: 1.0.2 → 1.0.3

wiki/src/doc/first_steps/startup_options/bridge_mode.mdwn
- Changes in file: config/chroot_local-includes/usr/share/tails/tbb-sha256sums.txt
- Updated package: tor: 0.3.0.8-1 → 0.3.0.10-1~d90.stretch+1

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2017-10-09 16:54:29

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to anonym
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

> I implemented the tool specified on the blueprint in commit:b80047222b4ce5f3634c5ae762aec7aeb07e0a99 which is already pushed to master.

Great! I’ll do a code review and once happy I’ll send this to sajolida who’ll need to use this tool quite a bit.

  • I quickly gave up trying to understand all the algorithms, sorry. At least the program is very well structured so I’m confident I’ll be able to hack on it if needed, even though it might be not so easy.
  • We need documentation about using this tool (contribute/how/doc?) e.g. how to install dependencies that might not be in Tails. On my (pretty bloated) sid system I had to install ruby-git. On Tails one might need more.
  • The program seems to support Git commitish and not only commits, e.g. one can pass a branch name or a tag. But the output of --help pretends only commits are supported, so I suspect some users will go through additional, useless steps to use it.
  • I don’t understand “containing the remaining package fields”.
  • I’d rather see variables express what they contain instead of yaml_struct :)

Once this is addressed, please send this to sajolida so he can review actual usage of the tool :)

#10 Updated by anonym 2017-10-10 17:06:54

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

intrigeri wrote:
> * I quickly gave up trying to understand all the algorithms, sorry. At least the program is very well structured so I’m confident I’ll be able to hack on it if needed, even though it might be not so easy.

I’m open to any suggestion of making the situation better, if necessary.

> * We need documentation about using this tool (contribute/how/doc?) e.g. how to install dependencies that might not be in Tails. On my (pretty bloated) sid system I had to install ruby-git. On Tails one might need more.

Done in commit:5da6a81c3db478b94b16bfc1a735fd2cd0b33e46.

> * The program seems to support Git commitish and not only commits, e.g. one can pass a branch name or a tag. But the output of --help pretends only commits are supported, so I suspect some users will go through additional, useless steps to use it.

Fixed in commit:75bd1de767662b8090c6c6914af3a52ef21a7374.

> * I don’t understand “containing the remaining package fields”.

Is commit:f0b13a69d515edb5ee8d0d25c1f9f88e72c2a815 making it clearer? I tried to describe it generally, since the code is general, and would survive if more fields were added into the .build-manifest format… hehe :)

> * I’d rather see variables express what they contain instead of yaml_struct :)

Fixed in commit:124da179b77c2febb99006e027ce024b8f6dec07.

I pushed a bunch of other commits, too, fixing a few serious issues, but generally improving the usefulness of the tool.

> Once this is addressed, please send this to sajolida so he can review actual usage of the tool :)

What do you think, sajolida? Do you feel confident adding a few more relationships and actually giving this a go? Or perhaps you need a few more for this to not be as much of a toy example?

#11 Updated by sajolida 2017-10-12 13:08:43

Before digging to this I’d like to have a better understand of the timeline and blocking relationships at sake: for when should I review you work?

Because right now this ticket is blocked by Feature #14578 and we’ve been discussing on tails@boum.org the relationship with Feature #14578 and a technical writing sprint that we want to do to deal with this update (and have more people on board).

So, if I understand well, I’d rather wait until we Feature #14578 is solved to put time into this, especially since times are quite hectic for me now.

#12 Updated by sajolida 2017-10-12 13:08:56

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to anonym
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

#13 Updated by intrigeri 2017-10-16 07:21:08

  • Assignee changed from anonym to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

I’ll review the recent changes and then will let anonym answer sajolida.

#14 Updated by intrigeri 2017-10-16 07:54:45

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to sajolida

Code & doc review passes!

sajolida wrote:
> Before digging to this I’d like to have a better understand of the timeline and blocking relationships at sake: for when should I review you work?

End of November IMO, see below for the reason why.

> So, if I understand well, I’d rather wait until we Feature #14578 is solved to put time into this, especially since times are quite hectic for me now.

I think “blocked by Feature #14578” was correct for the original purpose of this ticket, but anonym repurposed it in a way that makes it hard to express the blocking relationships in Redmine.

IMO, in order to make a decision on Feature #14578, we need to gather info about the biggest foreseeable issues wrt. the whole plan. One of these issues is communicating changes to tech writers. So I think we do need your input here before we make a decision on Feature #14578, i.e. by the end of November; it would be nice if we could learn a bit in advance if there’s more work we need to do here by the end of November (let’s try to avoid the domino effect i.e. your own hectic times create a timeline that’s hectic for other people), but well, I know you’ll do what you can and I’m quite confident we got it mostly right :)

And once we’ve made a decision on Feature #14578 we’ll be able to actually do what this ticket was originally about. If the fact that all this is poorly encoded in Redmine right now is a serious problem for you, please ask anonym to fix it.

#15 Updated by intrigeri 2017-11-25 15:24:40

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.5 to Tails_3.7

#16 Updated by intrigeri 2018-01-01 16:40:03

  • blocked by deleted (Feature #13244: Core work 2017Q4: Foundations Team)

#17 Updated by intrigeri 2018-03-28 19:14:54

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.7 to Tails_3.10.1

#18 Updated by intrigeri 2018-08-20 10:10:05

  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • Target version deleted (Tails_3.10.1)
  • QA Check deleted (Ready for QA)

We can’t make progress on this now.

#19 Updated by intrigeri 2019-08-30 20:17:47

  • Status changed from In Progress to Confirmed