[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Partitionint UI stuff...

On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 19:37 +0200, Joel Granados wrote:
> Hey list.
> Been analyzing the UI partitioning stuff and here is an initial mail to
> get the discussion rolling.  Before anything I'd like to state that IMO
> the UI (in general) does not need a rewrite.  What I think should be
> done is make the UI better using the current state of the code.  I also
> know that describing this in a mail could lead to confusion, so I
> promise some glade code in my next post.

I agree that the current UI is not horrible and could benefit
significantly from a few well-chosen tweaks and a new screen or two. A
rewrite would be nice, though, at some point in the not-too-distant

> Ok, here goes:
> 1. Help dialogs: Have a mouse over help functionality for storage stuff
> in general.  There are a lot of concepts that are in the installation
> that might need clarification.  Nothing better for the user to have a
> way to find out some additional info.  Could be a mouse over or a right
> click on labels (or something).  I would like for it to be invisible
> unless the user does something (like move the mouse).

Some of these could be very useful. For example, the various
check-buttons in the partition dialogs could use a one-sentence

> 9. Maybe (just thinking out loud here). Have a feature that enables the
> user to access each action (the same ones from the left), from a right
> click in the information view (tree view or bar view).  In such a way
> that when the user right clicks some device in the bar view, the possible
> actions he/she can do with that device appear in a list.

Sounds good. Some context-awareness does not seem like too much to ask.

> 11. I believe that we should not have such big type names.
> Specifically: Physical Volume (LVM) and Software RAID.  We can call them
> something different (like LVM-PV and SW-RAID) and have a mouse over
> functionality that actually explains stuff.

I am not a fan of the long names. I prefer names like "lvm" for LVs and
"raid" for mdraid.

> 13. Currently, to create a VG, we need partitions formated as PV to be
> in the tree.  We could easily (I use easily without really knowing what
> needs to be done :) use free space partitions as well. And
> create the PV format and relate it to the new VG behind the scenes.

This seems reasonable and not too tough.

> 18. Have the possibility of using the LV screen without having to go
> through the VG screen.  So when the user selects an LV and clicks on
> edit, the LV screen (only) pops up.  Consider also putting some VG info
> on the LV screen so that that screen does not depend on the VG screen
> being in the background for context.

Yes! I think we should edit one device at a time whenever possible.

You can edit a VG: add/remove PVs, rename, change extent size.
You can edit an LV: choose which VG it belongs to, rename, format, &c
They do not need to be stacked.

These nested dialogs are at the top of my list of things that need to go
away as a result of this work.

I'm eager to see how the things look after a consult with UI people.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]