On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 13:53 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Bastien Nocera
> But if the installer is (completely) broken, it might as well be dropped.
> Alas, it's not completely broken.
Unwieldy, perhaps. It's kinda hard to argue that the installer needs
to be this complicated, that Fedora (mainly QA) has to put in so much
effort into the installer each cycle testing for bugs in new features
and also regressions.
> > 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
> > used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
> > issue.
> The testing should be switched to be a dual-boot test, as it's what
> Mac users are more likely to be using (and also a necessity for firmware
The firmware angle is a very good point.
But you were wrong in the first place. We *do* test dual boot installs
on that Mac, when we test anything on it. As I said already.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net