On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. My point is the number of affected GPUs (i.e whether 1 vs. 1000) is irrelevant, the number of affected users (10 vs. 100000) is what matters. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
