On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 20:30 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 21:12 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Really? We don't want to even make sure the apps that we ship by > > default in the DVD image starts? Why are we even bothering to ship > > those additional apps then? Include in the DVD image the same set of > > apps that we include in the live images (from GNOME and KDE) and > > nothing more then. > > My $0.02: I'm surprised this change is even being considered. If the > application is completely broken, and it is not important enough to be > on the live CD, and it is not important enough to fix before the > release, then the application should be dropped from the default > install: blocker resolved! If it's important enough to remain in the > default install, it's also important enough to block the release. > > A basic functionality test is, well, basic, and Fedora shouldn't install > something by default that's known to be completely broken. It also > doesn't make any sense for a DVD installation to secretly result in a > lower quality desktop than a live CD installation. (Well, it doesn't > really make sense for the DVD installation to include more packages, > either, but that's a separate issue.) It never turns out to be quite so simple in practice. The specific bug here is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1040922 it was -1'ed at go/no-go meeting in about five seconds. No-one voted +1 blocker on it. We are clearly not, as a project, willing to block releases on this. Yet it clearly violates the current criterion as written. This must be resolved somehow. The complicating factors here: the 'application' in question isn't really an application so much as it's a convenience wrapper around one of the dozens of bits that go to make up kipi-plugins. It's not actually totally broken, because if you somehow run it against some image files - run it from a command line, or use it to 'open with' some image file or other - it works. It doesn't do anyone any good for us to write something in our criteria that the project is not actually willing to stick to; in practice, this criterion is not passing the 'do we slip a week to fix absolutely any violation of this criterion' test. We don't. So, we have to do something about that. Please do post any alternative suggestions that resolve the tension... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
