On Sunday, December 15, 2019 9:46:21 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 9:32 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, December 15, 2019 9:14:53 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 7:48 PM John M. Harris Jr > > > <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While that may be representative of "where the market is going", it's > > > > not > > > > representative of where we are. Please keep in mind that we support > > > > far > > > > more than just the latest generation hardware. We don't support quite > > > > as > > > > much as Debian, but we have many users who don't have UEFI, or have > > > > early > > > > UEFI firmware, which doesn't support USB boot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fedora QA has variably floated dropping the physical optical boot > > > criterion for at least the past two or three years. In terms of > > > testing, it's where we have been for a while. > > > > > > > > It simply is not where we are now, nor have we been "for a while". > > > Based on what facts? You merely repeating yourself over and over until > people give up? Based on the fact that this actually has been getting tested. You can claim otherwise, but that does not make it so. While the idea may have come up, and I wouldn't be aware of that, nor would it matter, it is not the case that it simply has become the case that it is not done. > The facts are in emails and IRC conversations Adam previously cited in > this very thread. This isn't a new problem or concern. And i was > involved in those conversations. I'm not making things up and just > saying them as if I wish they were true, or as if saying things makes > them true. Please see above. Additionally, there is no reason to be hostile about this. > > > > This is a good example of what I mentioned about hardware that runs > > > > Fedora. Many people won't want to replace their hardware just because > > > > their OS is randomly throwing out compatibility for it, like we have > > > > been > > > > prone to do in Fedora recently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hyberbole. This is not an arbitrary proposal or process. > > > > > > > > It is completely arbitrary. It works right now. Testing it requires very > > little user time, and only needs to be done after automated tests have > > already passed. > > > hy·per·bo·le > /hīˈpərbəlē/ > noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles > exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. > > > > The change proposal lays out clear subjective and objective reasoning, > and the change proposal process includes this now 70 some odd email > thread discussion, and it's not yet decided by FESCo. These are > objective processes. You calling them completely arbitrary cannot be > taken seriously. It's an unserious ridiculous characterization. That is, by definition, not hyperbole. It was meant to be taken seriously, and is an issue that needs to be addressed. This is not the only change I am referring to. We've been in the habit of dropping things that work, with no real reasons lately. For example, look at dropped x86 support, and soon we will be dropping Python 2. We have already had several Python 2 packages dropped simply because they refused to move to Python 3. This is an ongoing issue, where everything considered "old" is just abandoned, and it is hurting the user base. It is clear that is where we're headed with this Change as well. As soon as these tests don't need to be done before a release, they won't be done before a release, and we'll have a release that has broken CD/ DVD images. -- John M. Harris, Jr. Splentity _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
