On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi folks! > > So, during Fedora 32 Final blocker review, a bug relating to "user > switching" came up for review: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817708 > > I dug into the question of whether we have tended to consider the "log > in / log out / shut down / reboot" criterion as covering user > switching, and found that this issue is actually kinda outstanding and > unresolved for a long time. > > Back in January 2015, we kinda provisionally decided that we *did* want > to block on user switching bugs, by accepting this one as a blocker > during a review meeting: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184933 > > kparal was detailed to propose clearly adding it to the criteria, and > he duly drafted up a change and mailed it to the relevant lists - > test@, kde@ and desktop@: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2015-January/124811.html > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2015-January/014175.html > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-January/011558.html > > However, here things foundered a bit because there was some opposition > to the idea. The discussion is spread across the three lists, but my > reading is broadly that there were distinct camps in favour of and > against blocking on user switching bugs. Prominent "pro-blocking" folks > were Michael Catanzaro and Kevin Kofler. Prominent "anti-blocking" > folks were Matthias Clasen, Rex Dieter and Josh Boyer. Obviously that's > a particularly awkward split because we have pro- and anti- folks on > both the desktop and KDE teams. > > The discussion was pretty active, but in the end it sort of petered out > without any definite conclusion being reached. The draft changes Kamil > proposed were never made, and the criterion remained as it was before. > > For the purposes of our specific F32 blocker proposal we decided to > adopt the principle that, since there was a discussion that clearly did > not reach a consensus that user switching *should* be release-blocking, > we could not really treat it as such, and thus we rejected the bug as a > blocker. But I figured it would probably be a good idea to bring the > topic up again and try to come to a definite conclusion this time. > > So, once again: do we think it makes sense to consider desktop user > switching - that is, switching between multiple active desktop sessions > for different users, without logging out and in - as release-blocking? > Has anyone who was active in the previous discussion changed their mind > on this? > > I suppose one question that could potentially arise is whether we could > treat it as release-blocking for GNOME but not for KDE, or vice versa. > In general I think it's a good goal to try and keep our standards > similar across our release-blocking desktops, but I do think we could > at least consider that, if the discussion seemed to be going in that > direction. Unfortunately I missed the discussion because of $DAYJOB stuff... >From my perspective in Workstation WG and member of KDE SIG, I would say that we should consider this release blocking. This is a somewhat common use-case on family/shared computers that we should have working. (I am a tiny bit biased, I've set up several Fedora systems where this feature has been used heavily...) -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-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/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
