On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 7:19 PM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr@redhat.com> wrote:
> *= Proposal =*
> Change the criterion to something along these lines:
> All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
> As you can see, the original criterion was kept for Fedora’s flagship
> desktop edition, the one that is most prominent on https://getfedora.org
> and probably the one that most newcomers download. We would still verify
> everything on Fedora Workstation on x86_64. But any other desktop
> (including Workstation on aarch64) would get just reduced criteria, because
> we simply can’t ensure the same quality bar for the smaller desktop
> editions/spins. There are some high-profile types of applications that I
> considered including in the list above, but didn’t in the end:
> * word editor   (e.g. libreoffice-writer)
> * spreadsheet editor   (e.g. libreoffice-calc)
> * video player   (e.g. totem)
> * help viewer   (e.g. yelp)
> I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether they should be included or not.

My thought here is that, yes, we should include these in our testing and continue to block on these, as I see them as some of the quintessential programs that a basic user would install Fedora and expect to be able to use. In my experience, if a new Linux user has to turn to the terminal to get thing working or installed, they're less likely to continue on with Fedora. We do have the gnome-software app, but even still, out-of-the-box functionality for the above listed programs should be included and they should work.

That's my two-cents anyway.

> Of course from an end-user point of view, it would be beneficial. But the
> question is whether we as QA can promise their testing. And also whether we
> want to block the release e.g. if Gnumeric is broken on armhfp XFCE or if
> totem doesn’t work on aarch64. Yes, it’s unpleasant, but people using
> alternative desktops and architectures are usually far from beginners. It’s

I can understand this sentiment and would be okay not blocking certain things on ARM, because as you stated, it takes a bit of technical know-how to even get an ARM system running, so I think it's a safe assumption to make that an ARM user can deal with minor default-application issues. This is an over-generalization, but I think it holds true for a majority of cases.

I'm a bit confused here. You agree that some apps might be OK to be not blocking on ARM, but one paragraph above, you want those apps included in the release blocking list. And that list is relevant just to Workstation on ARM, or the KDE spin. Because on x86_64 Workstation, according to the proposal, we still block on all the apps. Can you please clarify? Thanks.