On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 00:49 -0600, Geoffrey Marr wrote:
At today's blocker review meeting, we ran across a bug that
believe is bad enough to warrant blocker status, but as the criteria
currently stand, does not violate any particular criterion. The bug in
question has to do with logging out of one user account and logging into
another account that has already been accessed before during that boot. The
criterion listed in the bug doesn't seem to fit, as it is more focused
on what happens after the system is booted (which does work in the case of
this bug). There is a Final criterion that covers switching between two
accounts, where the data in the account switched out of is retained, but
that is not the case presented here (as this bug has to do with "logging
in/out" of accounts, not "switching" as they are defined technically).
Intellectually, we believe this type of bug should violate the criteria, as
it seems a common use-case, and so we are bringing it up as a possible
addition as there is nothing that currently covers this kind of bug.
The new criterion could look something like "A system with multiple user
accounts must be able to log in and out of said accounts as presented by
all release-blocking desktops in their default configuration."
We would appreciate feedback on this idea and the wording of the criterion.
Should this be a beta or a final blocker? If nothing is heard in a
reasonable amount of time (before next week's blocker review meeting), we
will assume there is no issue with the proposal and add it to the criteria
at that time.
There's a sort of technical argument to be made that this is covered by
That says "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using
standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all
release-blocking desktops", with a footnote "Logging out must return
the user to the environment from which they logged in, working as
expected." Arguably the environment from which they logged in is not
"working as expected" if you can't then log in as someone else.
Adding a more explicit requirement wouldn't hurt, though, I guess. I
sort of feel like it would be nice to somehow combine and rationalize
all these related requirements somehow...
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net