On 17 November 2016 at 10:22, Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people
> really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do
> just a little of the work in an organized fashion. Put together a Mac
> SIG that focuses on getting the best experience on the hardware. Send
> some QA people newer Macs. Otherwise how do people know that it is
> really important to you versus "I have 4 minutes on the internet so I
> can send a complaint email" important. Because at this point that is
> all this looks like.
So, I can't say that the problem is more systemic than what you describe
without making it seem like I'm "sending a complaint email". Let me know
if you want a list of hardware enablement I've done on Macs over the years.
That was rude of me and I apologize. Dialing back my melodramatics.. I
will try to walk through my reasoning.
1. There was no proposal to drop Macs. Josh wasn't at the meeting but
said he would have argued for it at the meeting because he felt it was
too little too late. The other FESCO members seem to have disagreed
with him so it wouldn't have passed. If a proposal was made for it, it
would happen for Fedora 26 and not Fedora 25.
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 Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to
3. Out of the people who on this thread said they have Apple hardware,
at least 2 have tested Fedora 25 but they both did in a way that would
not have hit the bug but could have been work arounds IF (and ONLY IF)
it had gone out.
4. Of the people who did have Macs but didn't test, most of them
seemed to have assumed that someone else was testing it for them OR
they didn't know how to test OR they didn't use dual boot so would not
have tested it.
5. Various people think that users of Mac hardware is the group Fedora
should focus on but they don't seem to be talking with each other
enough to say how.
So to me this says that a Macintosh Special User Group would be a
useful tool to answer 2 through 4. They could better find someone who
can rotate through the Fedora QA group to answer 2. They can also work
out what pathways may need to be tested. The people in 3 who are
testing can help the people in 4 also spread out the work. They can
also say which Mac hardware is a good fit for Fedora and which one
isn't. This can better aim people who are coming in but end up with
say some particular hardware from going in and trashing their computer
when it would not have worked without expert help.
Does that sound better than my over the top original rant?
Stephen J Smoogen.