On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 11:52 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Since then we've stuck to the policy that only bugs we would
delay the release for go on the blocker list, and I think that's
out well and we should try to stick with it.
I absolutely agree with this.
So with that in mind, can I ask if we really want to block Fedora
releases on high-contrast icons? If the consensus is 'yes', then fine,
no need for action.
Well, the blocker is not that "app X needs a HC icon," the blocker is
"app X with no HC icon is installed by default," which really should
never be the last blocker left before final release since the affected
app can be dropped if no icon materializes.
For F21, we obviously can't (or don't want to) remove anaconda, or
fedora-welcome, or setroubleshoot (well honestly I was kind of hoping
for that one to be removed :), so this time around the criterion was a
credible threat to delaying the release. But that's just because the
criterion is brand new. (Maybe it was a mistake for it to have applied
to existing apps.) Going forward, this criterion only prevents us from
introducing *new* applications to the default install if they would
cause our high contrast coverage to regress; it will never again impact
critical apps like anaconda (unless perhaps an icon is lost by accident,
which ought to be easily-fixable). So when this issue occurs again, it
will be because we decided to add a new app to the default install (or
the app somehow was added inadvertently), and the WG will be able to
close the blocker bug by dropping the app from the default install,
rather than risk delaying the release. (Or it could choose to delay the
release if the app is really insanely desirable.)
So my opinion is yes, blocking on HC icons is fine. But if we don't want
to, we can just change the relevant point in the applications and
launchers policy from MUST to SHOULD.