On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 13:53 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > But if the installer is (completely) broken, it might as well be dropped. > > Alas, it's not completely broken. > > Unwieldy, perhaps. It's kinda hard to argue that the installer needs > to be this complicated, that Fedora (mainly QA) has to put in so much > effort into the installer each cycle testing for bugs in new features > and also regressions. > > > > > > > 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only > > > used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this > > > issue. > > > > The testing should be switched to be a dual-boot test, as it's what > > Mac users are more likely to be using (and also a necessity for firmware > > upgrades). > > The firmware angle is a very good point. But you were wrong in the first place. We *do* test dual boot installs on that Mac, when we test anything on it. As I said already. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
