On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 13:31 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote: >> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2016-11-10/f25-final-gono-go-meeting.2016-11-10-17.00.log.html >> >> > > > 17:10:26 <adamw> i can't really vote -1 on this under the current criteria unless someone tries on a newer mac and it works. but given https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/25/Installation/QA_Testcase_dualboot_with_OSX_Miscellaneous.html , i am entirely open to dropping the criterion on the basis of failure to test. >> >> >> I think it's specious to drop the criterion on this basis. There are >> plenty of other things that don't get tested and their criterion don't >> get dropped. > > I am actually planning to propose precisely this. My sincere apologies for not being in the meeting. I could not attend due to a conflict with a different meeting. I am somewhat befuddled at the decision to block the entire release for this issue. We seem to have created a criteria under the premise that "lots of people have Macs and want to run Linux/Fedora on them", yet our empirical data seems to have shown a distinct lack of testing that would bear that premise out. I agree 100% that lots of people have Macs. I agree in part that people want to run Linux/Fedora on them. I agree that a subset of those that want to run Linux on a Mac also want to dual-boot OS X. What I cannot get my head around though is how we've essentially made a decision based on perceived marketing value of those target users at the expense of every other platform we support. Our engineering and testing resources are clearly not sufficient to cover this case. If they are, then we have a fairly large communication problem illustrated here. Or if that wasn't the reason, and it was simply "because we have a criteria written down" that also seems somewhat myopic. Please don't misunderstand me. I want this to work and I think it is valuable. I also appreciate everyone pitching in at the last minute and I'm sure it will get fixed. However, I think we really need to take a strong look at what our Project can sustain, the value of the distribution as a whole across all Editions and platforms, and the resulting impacts of every possible slip. The conversation I read in the IRC logs does not seem to reflect that, and despite people wishing for "not hero-ing" that seems like exactly what happened and will continue to happen, extending even into the release itself over a major holiday. We are technical people and bugs bother us and we want to fix them. Yet, we need to make judgement calls on blockers based on reality and overall benefit/cost of blocking the release, not because we have a known root-cause at the last minute and can probably fix it if we slip. That way lies madness and we'll continue to have further arguments about playing catch-up in the schedule with a shorter cycle next release, etc. How can we ensure that we balance that with a broader focus across the Project so that we don't continue to have problems of our own making? josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
