On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I never said or previously suggested the tests aren't predicated on dual boot. What I just did today, is reply to someone else making that assertion without correcting it. I know the installation tests are dual boot, following a restore of macOS. But my understanding is the Mac Mini isn't generally running macOS; it's running Fedora. Unless that system run Mac OS and any update notifications for firmware updates are responded to and then applied to the system, it's not getting firmware updates. It's pretty unlikely missing firmware updates are going to affect Fedora testing, but... -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
