On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 13:27 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:34 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:11 AM Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I guess the proposed criterion should get adjusted per our latest > > discussion in blocker review meeting, i.e. this one: > > > 16:28:24 <adamw> #agreed 1755898 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - per list > > and meeting discussion of bcotton's proposed criterion, we agree in > > principle to block on modifier key toggling working well and consistently > > throughout the system, but not on the light state being correct (as that is > > difficult to guarantee). consequently the 'shell and apps behave > > differently' portion of this is accepted > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2019-10-07/f31-blocker-review.2019-10-07-16.02.log.html > > Based on this, I am presenting a modified proposal: > > > > == Keyboard toggle keys == > > > > For all release-blocking desktops, the Caps Lock and Num Lock keys > > must correctly toggle the relevant behavior for the desktop and all > > applications. > > > > I believe we should explicitly state that the light state might not match. > Otherwise we'll forget about this discussion and many of us will assume the > light state must match as well (and then Adam will have to use his infinite > memory and dig through the archives to prove us wrong once again). Yeah, it could go in as a footnote. > But, I wonder if we perhaps still could make it more stricter about the > light indicator. The argument was that there is some hardware that doesn't > allow querying or something, and that's why we can't guarantee that. Well, > what if we said the light state must reflect the reality in principle, but > it doesn't need to work for hardware that doesn't support necessary > capabilities or is otherwise hard to work with? Because if there's a race > condition that lights up the indicator randomly whenever you boot, I'd like > to cover that case with the criterion. If the light state is clearly broken > in software, because it's inverted on *all* keyboards out there, I'd like > to cover that case with the criterion. Only with problematic hardware, I'd > make it non-blocking. What do you think? I think we should ask someone with more practical knowledge about the actual issues here. Probably a kernel developer or someone at GNOME who has dealt with it before. All I know is that it's a tricky area. -- 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 send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
