On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 09:00 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I would make the criterion a little more generic than that. E.g. we > don't want to block Fedora release if https://extensions.gnome.org/ > goes down due to a server problem, or if GNOME decides to change the > way extension installation works. For the first part, we can add a footnote clarifying that we expect the site to be working. For the second, if that happens, we can just change the criterion. It's only text. I'm not sure I can write it any more generically without losing all meaning or unexpectedly broadening the scope. For instance if we just say it must be possible to install extensions, what does that *mean*? Is it OK if you can only do it by hacking around with gsettings values manually? Or on the other end of the scale, does it require that *any possible method* of installing extensions works? That just feels too vague to me. Do you have a suggestion for improved wording? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
