On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 24, 2014, at 4:47 AM, David Sommerseth <davids@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 23/01/14 23:16, Chris Murphy wrote:> By all means, software does and needs to evolve, and it can break. I
> have full understanding for this. But not alerting that basic
> functionality of things you would expect breaks, that's the key point
> here. That puts users into a difficult situation, especially when the
> dependencies are so tricky.
<snip>
But the feature page explicitly said no major regressions. So either the feature owner disagrees with the assessment in this thread that the breakage is a major regression; or major breakage occurred and even slipped by the feature owner. So? I'm not sure how you expect this to work better.
Yeah. Looking back, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Bluez5 explicitly says "User experience should change minimally.", while http://www.bluez.org/release-of-bluez-5-0/ explicitly includes "Remove internal support for telephony (HFP and HSP) profiles." It's not obvious to me how the two are consistent
Generally FESCo trusts the Change owners to provide accurate information, and we'd rather keep trusting everyone rather than second-guessing every word.
Mirek
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
