On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 11:32 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:10 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 10:03 -0400, James Laska wrote: > > > > > > > But that's a bit open to interpretation. For example, it could be said > > > > (I think I even did) that reboot/shutdown does work, it just takes > > > > forever. Anyone else think it would be worthwhile to adjust the Beta > > > > criteria to something like ... > > > > > > > > "The desktop's offered mechanisms (if any) for shutting down, > > > > logging out and rebooting must work and perform the intended > > > > function in a reasonable time." > > > > > > That's against the original intention of the criterion: the criterion is > > > one of the set that came in from the desktop team, and they specifically > > > wanted it to be about whether the desktop is able to trigger the action > > > correctly, not whether the action actually completes successfully. > > > That's not to say that we might not want to change it, but we could > > > perhaps split it up, and it's something worth taking note of. > > > > I think it should be obvious that we not only want the action to be > > triggered, but also to succeed. > > Well, the opposite was the original position: that it wasn't the desktop > team's job to worry about if the kernel / systemd / initscripts / > whatever had a bug which prevented the operation completing, it was only > desktop team's job to make sure the operation fired correctly. > > I don't want to split hairs too finely, I just want to make sure we > don't lose anything of our original intent :) Adding this small text at the end of the existing criteria seems to be the simplest approach </opinion>. I wasn't anticipating that the desktop team would be responsible for fixing any bugs in that criteria, considering the realm of possible failures could be exhaustive. The only part I'm not 100% comfortable with is the phrasing, "in a reasonable time." That seems too open for subjectivity. I think I'd be fine leaving that out and simply stating that the desired function must work as intended. Thoughts? Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
