On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 11:19 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 08:23 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 01:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> > I don't think we'd really be correct in blocking the release
> >> > issues - especially not Beta. We used to have 'polish'
> >> > Final which at least required the icons used in the system menus -
> >> > what's specified in the app's .desktop file - to be sane for
> >> > installed applications, but we dropped that (and other polish
> >> > with the F19/F20 criteria re-write on the basis that they were really
> >> > stretching a bit too far and would be unlikely to hold up to a
> >> > blocker before release' acid test. Stuff like this doesn't
> >> > anyone's use of the system catastrophically and can reasonably be
> >> > with updates.
> >> But it also affects the live images (making them look very unpolished) and
> >> we don't respin those.
> > That's why I said 'reasonably' not 'perfectly' :) I can see
> > for blocking Final, though in practice, I don't think our current
> > standards are such that it really makes sense to claim our final
> > releases are so smooth as to be worth enforcing a high standard of
> > polish via the blocker mechanisms
> Then we should that. There is a difference between "perfect" and something
> looks obviously broken.
Are we really fighting about the classification of fixed bugs here, or
is there a new issue that I am not aware of ?
It's become a question of whether there should be a Beta or Final
requirement for icons to be present / "look good", I think.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net