On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 22:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The > > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which > > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various > > ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. It's hardly > > something that renders an entire policy invalid. > > > >> A bugfix is now being held up for almost a month just because there's no > >> proventester with the required hardware. > > > > The proventesters are not an immutable set. There's certainly people who > > have the hardware - anyone with an XO, and I see enough of them at > > FUDCons. All we need is for one of them to sign up to be a proventester. > > This isn't impossible either. > > Today it's this package. Tomorrow it'll be another one. Sure we can solve > this particular problem (but it's taking WEEKS!), but why would that be the > only one? It probably won't be. But then, if 'there might be problem cases' was a sensible reason for refusing to implement any process, we'd never implement any at all. There are problems with Bodhi, sometimes - should we not have it? There are bugs in KDE packages - should we not have them? It's just a silly assertion. BTW, the update in question has no feedback from *anyone* yet. I'd happily vote-by-proxy if some XO users who aren't proventesters had posted +1s, but none have. Can anyone reading this list who has an XO (or other Geode hardware) please test the update? Thanks. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
