> I hesitate whether we should mandate working updates in live
Er, we wouldn't? That criterion still explicitly states "The installed
system". When a criterion had text like that I didn't think it
necessary to *also* add some text saying "doesn't apply to live
environments", since that's just two ways of saying the same thing.
Sorry, I missed that. You're right.
> I'm not completely happy about the wording of:
> " This criterion does apply to live environments. However, a stricter
> standard of judgement may be applied to conditional violations in
> live environments, as clean shutdown and log out functionality is
> relatively less important on a live boot than an installed system. "
> For example logout is necessary if you want to switch languages (and
> our l10n test days rely on that). Reboot and shutdown is necessary
> for automating stuff. I'd use the same measure as in post-install
Hmm, IIRC this was one case that *really happened*, and I was trying to
catch the flavor of our IRC discussion at the time - my memory is that
we were willing to accept such bugs as blockers, but we'd maybe be more
likely to waive them for only affecting a small amount of users or
being workaroundable or something like that.
If the explanation sounds like this, I'm actually very OK with that :) I'd
probably avoid saying "less important", because then it sounds like an advice to
waive everything. I think it's equally important, it just has different use cases.
Maybe we could say something like "a slightly different standard of judgement may be
applied to conditional violations in live environments, as the use cases of live systems
and installed systems are not the same". For example, if shutdown didn't work
properly and on some systems actually caused restart, that could be seen as a lesser
problem on Lives.