On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 21:24 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hey folks. So this morning I remembered that > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ exists - it's a rather > > useful page for explaining bits of the blocker process that we should > > probably refer to more often. Given that the question keeps coming up, I > > added a section to it which explains the precedent we've established for > > deciding blocker status for graphics hardware bugs: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#Why_isn.27t_my_graphics_card_showstopper_bug_a_blocker.3F_I_can.27t_boot.21 > > I disagree with "and affect at least a few different adapters" ... if > it is just one GPU that a lot of people use it should be sufficent to > be a blocker (common laptop model, an APU or ironlake / ivy / snb gpu > as those are part of the CPU and thus likely have a large userbase). > > So if it is a single but commonly used GPU (large userbase) it should > be no different than a bug that affects 3 GPUs that has a userbase as > large as the other one. In theory that's correct but I'm not sure there's actually such a thing as a single adapter with enough users to constitute a blocker on its own. The more popular Intel ones would be closest to qualifying, I guess. Of course, it's hard to prove this by smolt, see my narrative on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847818 . Still, I'll see if I can come up with clearer wording, thanks for the note. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
