No icon = no promulgation?

[Matt Bruzek]

Hello José,

Thanks for sending this email out.  Your commitment to the Juju community
is pretty impressive.  What you did not mention in your email is the reason
you were subscribed to this bug is because you performed a community review
of this charm for us.  That is something I really appreciate, and want to
thank you again for reviewing the charm.

What we have here is a policy question.  Should we be able to promulgate
charms without icons?  In an ideal world, I want an icon for each charm but
in the real world I live in, not every charm has an icon.  Do I want to
make that better?  Heck yeah I do!  So I agree with the policy.

The old saying goes there is an exception to every rule.  I believe this
charm qualifies for an exception because of the circumstances.  The author
has asked for approval to use an official icon and has received no
response.  So my question to the group is:  Should there be an exception
process that we can follow for situations like this?  For example could the
charmers take a vote on the issue, or send a message to the community.  I
am looking for a pragmatic way to handle a minor exception to policy.

Incidentally, I am working with the author to create an icon for this charm
and hope to have something *soon* so we an add CakePHP to our ecosystem!

   - Matt Bruzek <matthew.bruzek at canonical.com>


On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48 PM, 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/20140814/82318a09/attachment.html>