No icon = no promulgation?

[Marco Ceppi]

It's not an Informational, it's actually a warning because it negatively
impacts the juju ecosystem OR is part of charm policy (both of which are
true). I sympathize with the author and am super appreciative of the amount
of work the author is doing by getting proper permission for use of their
logo in the icon. However, I don't see an issue with the author creating a
temporary icon with text on an appropriate background while waiting to
receive proper permission for the icon. An icon is better than no icon.

As for your experience, I don't recall temporary icons being rejected,
could it be that you didn't make it clear it was a temporary icon?

Finally, and a very *very* important piece of information. The charm *is* in
the charm store. It's available under their namespace cs:~lpuser/charm and
nothing stopping it from being found
https://jujucharms.com/~fgimenez/trusty/cakephp-7/ There's nothing wrong
with saying "You've done a great job, but an icon is needed to be
considered */a recommended charm/*" which is what the review process is
doing. Promoting it to a "reviewed" status, not promoting it to the charm
store.

Not a final say, but my opinion on the situation.

Marco


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:48 AM, José Antonio Rey <jose at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As I am subscribed to all bugs in Juju (as some of you may also be),
> today I got an email from a CakePHP charm review. On this one, a charmer
> had to reject the submission because, when promulgating, the tool runs
> `charm proof` to make sure things are not broken, not promulgating if
> any Error or Warning pops up. And there was a problem: this charm did
> not have an icon (which throws a Warning in `charm proof`, making it
> impossible to promulgate it.
>
> I totally understand what has been done. Now, a charm cannot be
> promulgated when there are Errors or Warnings. But since not having an
> icon is a Warning, it will not allow a charmer to promulgate any charms
> which do not contain an icon, may it be because the author is asking for
> official permission (like in this case), because the service has no
> icon, or any other reasons. In some of the cases, it may be a
> fully-working charm, with no other issues apart from not having an icon.
> We even have lots of charms with no icon in the store. And about
> proposing a temporary icon, when I proposed an icon which was just an
> orange background with the service name, it got rejected. So, I don't
> know what may be an idea for a 'temporary' or 'provisional' icon.
>
> I believe having an icon is not that of a priority, and that we should
> focus in having charms that provide working services. Still, we should
> try to ensure and promote the idea of charms having icons, but I do not
> see it as a fatal error like to prevent promulgation.
>
> In this case, I would be for demoting the level of the warning issued by
> `charm proof` from Warning to Information. This, as it is not something
> critical, and charms/services will still work, even with no icon. It
> doesn't affect functionality, but it only removes the pretty part (that
> can be added later) of the GUI. By doing this, we will throw something
> when `charm proof` is ran, but still allow promulgation if there is no
> icon.
>
> What do you guys think about it?
>
> --
> José Antonio Rey
>
> --
> Juju mailing list
> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20140814/6b489502/attachment.html>