On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 13:31 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > 17:10:26 <adamw> i can't really vote -1 on this under the
current criteria unless someone tries on a newer mac and it works. but given
, i am entirely open to dropping the criterion on the basis of failure to test.
> I think it's specious to drop the criterion on this basis. There are
> plenty of other things that don't get tested and their criterion don't
> get dropped.
I am actually planning to propose precisely this.
My sincere apologies for not being in the meeting. I could not attend
due to a conflict with a different meeting.
I am somewhat befuddled at the decision to block the entire release
for this issue. We seem to have created a criteria under the premise
that "lots of people have Macs and want to run Linux/Fedora on them",
yet our empirical data seems to have shown a distinct lack of testing
that would bear that premise out.
I agree 100% that lots of people have Macs. I agree in part that
people want to run Linux/Fedora on them. I agree that a subset of
those that want to run Linux on a Mac also want to dual-boot OS X.
What I cannot get my head around though is how we've essentially made
a decision based on perceived marketing value of those target users at
the expense of every other platform we support. Our engineering and
testing resources are clearly not sufficient to cover this case. If
they are, then we have a fairly large communication problem
illustrated here. Or if that wasn't the reason, and it was simply
"because we have a criteria written down" that also seems somewhat
Please don't misunderstand me. I want this to work and I think it is
valuable. I also appreciate everyone pitching in at the last minute
and I'm sure it will get fixed. However, I think we really need to
take a strong look at what our Project can sustain, the value of the
distribution as a whole across all Editions and platforms, and the
resulting impacts of every possible slip. The conversation I read in
the IRC logs does not seem to reflect that, and despite people wishing
for "not hero-ing" that seems like exactly what happened and will
continue to happen, extending even into the release itself over a
We are technical people and bugs bother us and we want to fix them.
Yet, we need to make judgement calls on blockers based on reality and
overall benefit/cost of blocking the release, not because we have a
known root-cause at the last minute and can probably fix it if we
slip. That way lies madness and we'll continue to have further
arguments about playing catch-up in the schedule with a shorter cycle
next release, etc. How can we ensure that we balance that with a
broader focus across the Project so that we don't continue to have
problems of our own making?