On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 09:55 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Adam Williamson >> <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 10:08 -0400, Joerg Lechner wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > question to Adam Williamson: >> > > Is it possible to file a bug to have a problem shifted from blocking >> > > for final i.e. to blocking for Alpha or Beta? >> > > This is a question for F25 and followers. >> > > Kind regards >> > >> > We can discuss changing the criterion, sure. This is usually done just >> > with a thread on the mailing list (exactly like this one) - there is no >> > need for a bug report or ticket. >> > >> > I don't think I'd support the change, though, personally. I think Final >> > is the appropriate place for dual-boot criteria. >> >> I don't think it'd affect development at all. What it does do is >> remove the most obvious big dual boot bugs from broader community beta >> testing, so that hopefully if there are more obscure bugs, they get >> found. Showstopper bugs tend to inhibit that testing. On some systems >> it's necessary to do a grub downgrade to do any post-install testing >> of a dual boot UEFI system right now. > > Well, sure, and we should just move all the criteria to Alpha so we can > test everything at Alpha! Not every bug limits the test coverage so dramatically to require that. And I'm not certain this one does either. But this bug does inhibit Windows boot, even if it's not nerfed, from GRUB for people with UEFI systems where it was previously working, when they upgrade to beta (which I don't think have any scary warnings like anaconda pre-releases). > It doesn't work that way. There has to be a trade-off between what we'd > like and what we can actually achieve. Of course it'd be nice if > everything worked all the time. I don't think you'll be able to sell > pjones on this being an Alpha blocker. I wouldn't buy off on it as an alpha blocker either. I might buy off on it being beta, but even there I'm skeptical as there is a work around. But what if there isn't a work around at all? I suppose in that case the catch all you hate for limiting test coverage would just apply in which case strictly speaking no change in criterion is needed here. -- Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
