Re: Default GUI or CLI for 3.8

[Daniel J Sebald]

All comments sound pretty reasonable.  I like Jordi's idea of marking 
this 3.8 (a beta for the GUI) and making the next major effort a really 
robust GUI.  If that takes six months, that's fine.

More below...


On 11/22/2013 03:25 PM, Michael D. Godfrey wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 03:53 PM, Rik wrote:
> > On 11/22/2013 12:31 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> > > >   From the messages I've seen so far, everyone seems to be in favor of
> > > >  releasing with the 3.8 version number and the GUI disabled.  That's
> > > >  OK, but I'm not sure it will accomplish what we want.
> > > >
> > > >  3.8 vs. 4.0 probably doesn't mean much to most users.  Many of them
> > > >  don't even know what version of Octave they are using.  One number is
> > > >  just as good as any other.

I too don't like software versions climbing to 15.0, etc., but the GUI 
is a major addition, so 4.0 reflects that.  The community news concept 
could be worked out in more detail for 4.0 as well.  (How to maintain? 
HTML code?  Other?)  I still think 3.8 is in order because the GUI feels 
just this side of beta quality right now.


> > > >  We can ask, but we can't prevent packagers from enabling the GUI by
> > > >  default.
> > No, although I think most packagers won't go out of their way to disrespect
> > our wishes.
> >
> > > >     And users are likely to just want to run it regardless of
> > > >  what we do.  Having a --gui option won't tell them anything except
> > > >  that the GUI is optional.  It won't tell them that we consider it to
> > > >  be in a state of testing.  If that's what we want users to understand,
> > > >  then we need to be more explicit about that.  Subtle clues like
> > > >  version 3.8 instead of 4.0 and having the GUI disabled by default
> > > >  isn't enough.
> > We could keep the existing option --force-gui as the way to start the GUI.
> > It doesn't sound that friendly and anything with "force" in it shouldn't be
> > something you throw in casually to an option list.

I'll propose changing "--force-gui" to "--beta-gui".


> > > >  How about adding a message box to the top menu bar that has a warning
> > > >  icon and tells people that this is the first release of the GUI and
> > > >  that we are looking for feedback and help with testing and fixing it?
> > I think this is good too, in addition to other measures like the
> > announcement in the NEWS file and requiring an option to start it.  Strings
> > for the new window probably won't be translated in time for release, but
> > that's a minor concern.

I'll also propose a couple things here:

1) We request that users not report any GUI-only related bugs to the 
conventional bug-tracking system.  Only give feedback on the 
look-and-feel and general behavior of the GUI.

2) Could we set up a temporary feedback page (with codeword/image entry 
to prevent spam) as part of the Octave webpage to direct users to?

That way, we could get lots of easy-to-read feedback and keep the 
Savanah and Maintainers list free of redundant traffic.  It would be the 
normal developers working on GUI bugs as usual until the 4.0 release at 
which point GUI bugs fall under the same category as all bugs.

So, the message upon launching the GUI might be something to the effect:

"This is an Octave GUI beta release with official release slated for 4.0 
sometime in the months to come.  Your feedback on the look-and-feel and 
general behavior of the GUI is welcome.  Please make comments at 
(comment page address, or blog page address that has comment support). 
We ask that you not file any bug reports related solely to the GUI at 
the conventional tracker website as developers are actively working on 
any GUI bugs for the 4.0 release and may have already addressed an issue 
you have found.  However, bug reports regarding the CLI version of the 
program are encouraged and may be done at the conventional tracking site."


> > > >
> > > >  I'm aware that there are problems, but I think the GUI is working
> > > >  pretty well on Windows and GNU/Linux systems now.  I think we should
> > > >  make it start by default on those systems (still with the warning
> > > >  displayed) just because there are more serious problems on OS X.
> > > >
> > The GUI does work pretty well on Linux and I could recommend it there, but
> > my experience on Windows hasn't been great.  I know that is the system that
> > needs it most since Windows users almost never resort to the command line,
> > but I'd still call it rough.
> >
> > --Rik
> The warning about "first release" or something a bit stronger is
> required in any
> case.  If the choice is made to have the GUI as default the warning
> should make very
> clear how to start Octave in CLI mode.
>
> An argument for not making the GUI default is that due to its obvious
> importance
> it would be seriously detrimental if many users (i.e. Windows folks)
> found it had
> problems that impeded their work.  My experience is that once a user
> decides something
> "does not work" it is very hard to convince them that it has been fixed,
> and that they
> should give it another try.

That's true...and I probably fall in that category.


> Would it make sense to build rc1 as GUI default with a disclaimer that
> says the release
> may be changed to default to CLI depending on feedback from the rc's?

Disclaimer is good but leaving the door open to change back probably isn't.

John's idea isn't too bad.  IF there are platforms for which the GUI is 
fairly robust then have it active by default (with the 3.8 disclaimers 
that appear in all versions).  Linux sounds like the only one that might 
fit in that category.  Windows?  Fifteen years ago I would have said 
fine, given how perennially buggy Windows was, but in recent years 
things have gotten better so maybe expectations are higher.

Dan