On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What would actually be an *improvement* is if we killed litd and luc's > 'cp mode', and only supported the new dd-only luc and dd-style writes. > That would substantially reduce the exposure we currently have to three > different writing modes: dd, litd, and luc-cp. Yes tons. > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Well if LUC is blocking on Linux, Windows, and OS X, that's three rows >> added to a matrix that has the same number of column as the total >> number of release blocking media per arch. > > Well no it's not, because we already have one row for luc in the > matrix. And we really haven't clearly defined in exactly what > circumstances we expect luc to work; you can argue under the current > criteria that we *already* require it to work on Fedora and Windows, > since the wiki page on USB writing (which the criteria links to) lists > it as a recommended tool for those platforms. If the current luc > actually ran on OS X we'd probably list it for OS X too. OK. I can see blocking on Windows LUC, because how else do they make media? If we really got down to blocking on OS X or Fedora LUC would we really block, or just expect people to use litd or dd? And if any would block, does it make more sense to use Accepted0Day, rather than actually hold up the release? -- Chris Murphy -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
