On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:48 AM Lukas Ruzicka <lruzicka(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hello,
I agree, that user switching as described in this proposal is something
that should work really well, because it can obviously change the user
experience in some cases.
I only have a problem with the following statement:
The switching mechanism must correctly attempt the requested operation.
>
As I understand it, it might be enough if the operation is "attempted"
only? This sounds vague and weak to me. I think we need something stronger
here, like "it performs the requested operation" or something similar.
It's similar to e.g. shutdown criterion [1] where the "shutdown mechanism
must correctly request a shutdown from the system firmware" or storage
resize criterion [2] where "installer mechanism for resizing storage
volumes must correctly attempt the requested operation".
The important word in all these cases is "correctly". It implies that the
software part, the calling part, must be implemented correctly. But because
it deals with hardware and low level firmware and drivers, it admits that
that part might not work correctly in all configurations. Which is then
expanded in the next sentence.
I simply got my inspiration from our other criteria when writing this one.
It doesn't have to stay this way. But I think the "correctly
attempt/request" wording is quite fitting here and it's not weak (at least
not towards our software stack, which is the part which we can control
reasonably well).
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Beta_Release_Criteria#Shutdown.2...
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria#Storage_v...