On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:50 AM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At today's blocker review meeting[0], we ran across a bug[1] that we believe is bad enough to warrant blocker status, but as the criteria currently stand, does not violate any particular criterion. The bug in question has to do with logging out of one user account and logging into another account that has already been accessed before during that boot. The criterion listed in the bug[2] doesn't seem to fit, as it is more focused on what happens after the system is booted (which does work in the case of this bug). There is a Final criterion[3] that covers switching between two accounts, where the data in the account switched out of is retained, but that is not the case presented here (as this bug has to do with "logging in/out" of accounts, not "switching" as they are defined technically). Intellectually, we believe this type of bug should violate the criteria, as it seems a common use-case, and so we are bringing it up as a possible addition as there is nothing that currently covers this kind of bug.The new criterion could look something like "A system with multiple user accounts must be able to log in and out of said accounts as presented by all release-blocking desktops in their default configuration."
So let's just include logging in as well, and we're done:
"Shutting down, rebooting, logging in and logging out must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops."
We'd also update the "Work?" footnote:
"Similar to the Basic criterion for shutting down, shutdown and reboot mechanisms must take storage volumes down cleanly and correctly request a shutdown or reboot from the system firmware. Logging in must transfer the user from the login screen/prompt to his/her working environment, and logging out must return the user to the environment from which they logged in, working as expected."
This sufficiently covers the discussed bug and seems to fit naturally into the existing criterion. One unclear area might be what the console console used for logging in is. We can either explicitly say that for logging in we don't require any specific console command, or we can note that the most likely command to get covered by this is "su". We can also not define it and leave that up to blocker discussion, if such a situation occurs in the future. I'd lean towards the last option, but all sound fine to me.
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________ kde mailing list -- kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kde-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
