On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> test@ list must be popular. No replies since April 10th
> despite a clear subject! What other list these days would
> have drawn the attention of someone with interest in
> Fedora's printing functionality?
Oh -- I don't know -- for reasons unclear,the 'Reply-to' is to
the initial poster alone, not the list -- just noticed this
That causes list traffic to simply disappear, unanswered
RFE to List-Owner: Please alter the
Reply-to: test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
for this list
=======
I have 'cc'd the proper 'owner' identiy -- we shall see.
================================
That said, I was corresponding privately with a well known
poster to this list about the fact that:
acceptance testing did not include a working printer for a
'Workstation' class unit
I received a prompt reply thus:
> > > the upgrade criteria. That is noted here:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503321#c7
>
> Interesting bug
>
> I see:
>
> The decision to classify this bug as an AcceptedBlocker was
> made, even though there is no current criteria to warrant
> blocking on this. We plan to make a near-future change to the
> criteria so that a bug like this from this point on will be
> blocker-qualifying
>
> ==========
>
> What IS the process and proper venue / place to seek changes
> in blocker-qualifying criteria?
Send a proposal to test@ (usually worth CCing to other lists
that may be interested too). Ideally include the words
'proposal' or 'proposed' and 'criteria' or 'criterion' in the
subject, cos it makes it a lot easier to find it later.
You can find lots of previous examples by, well, searching the
list archives for those words. A proposal typically includes a
general explanation of the nature of the proposed change and
the reason for it, and the specific text you want to add or
change or remove.
Thanks!
==============
I have not gotten back to searching the archives for a 'worked
example' to follow yet -- not enough 'tuits'
Long form was:
I am thinking here of a comment ... made a while back, that
did not provoke any response, that there was no requirement
that printing actually work, much of anywhere
I particularly think that a unit in 'workstation' role should:
1. have a working LPR, [and so a matching LPD] to receive
print jobs, and
2. either
a. (worst choice) catch and route such to root's email as a
an attachment print job file via mailx -- bad idea as
it fills up /var/spool/mqueue/ [/] /var/spool/mail/
b. (perhaps better) pop up a message that print services
are not yet configured, and optionally offer
suggestions in a 'want to know more' link
c. (best of the lot) if print services ARE configured,
hand off the print job to that service
I've been unclear about where to champion such a proposed
change in release criteria
Thank you
-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
