On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 15:59 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > 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. I'm not sure I particularly buy that. Are there really a lot of people testing pre-releases by dual-booting who can't navigate the UEFI boot menu? I mean, it's possible, but I haven't got that impression... > And I'm not certain this one does either Right. > . 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). Well, you kinda have to read the instructions to upgrade to a Beta, and the instructions do of course include all the warnings. > > > 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. I'm still not really convinced it applies. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
