Chris Murphy wrote:
> There is nothing sudden about this proposal. It is not unusual. It has
> been laboriously explained. You just don't like what you're hearing.
> And you are resorting to a variety of slander in mischaracterizing
> people's decisions, through your word selection.
You are the one not liking what you are hearing, and hence accusing John of
producing logical fallacies. But that itself is a logical fallacy, an ad
hominem attack.
> Conjecture over bugs that do not exist, demanding they will inevitably
> exist, and hyping that some large number of users will be abandoned
> and injured and powerless to do anything about it, is a logical
> fallacy called appeal to emotion.
There is no fallacy there. It is an undeniable fact that not considering
something a blocker and stopping to test it (the latter being the reason for
doing the former to begin with) WILL eventually lead to a release shipping
with that something not fixed. That is the whole point of having blocker
criteria to begin with.
> The historic facts presented in this thread show this class of bug to
> be rare, and identifiable by virtual device.
No matter how rare it is, if it is not a blocker, it just has to happen to
happen on release day (on the day of the RC compose, actually) and the
release will ship with the bug unfixed.
(And no, "has to happen to happen" is not a typo. :-) )
> It is baseless and useless speculation that dropping this release criteria
> will result in undiscovered and unfixed bugs. Is it possible? Sure. Is it
> probable let alone certain? No. That is conjecture.
Your claiming the opposite is conjecture as well. There is nothing
guaranteeing that it will not happen if you remove the one thing that is
actually guaranteeing it now (though arbitrary criteria have already been
put on the blocker enforcement, restricting the images it applies to, which
(to my knowledge) have not been approved by the maintainers of the affected
images – that needs fixing, too).
> Is it likely it will affect most of the user base? No. Most of the user
> base does USB based installs.
True, but for something to be a blocker, it does not necessarily have to
affect the majority of the users, just a sizable portion.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
