On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 22:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The
> > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which
> > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various
> > ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. It's hardly
> > something that renders an entire policy invalid.
> >> A bugfix is now being held up for almost a month just because there's no
> >> proventester with the required hardware.
> > The proventesters are not an immutable set. There's certainly people who
> > have the hardware - anyone with an XO, and I see enough of them at
> > FUDCons. All we need is for one of them to sign up to be a proventester.
> > This isn't impossible either.
> Today it's this package. Tomorrow it'll be another one. Sure we can solve
> this particular problem (but it's taking WEEKS!), but why would that be the
> only one?
It probably won't be. But then, if 'there might be problem cases' was a
sensible reason for refusing to implement any process, we'd never
implement any at all. There are problems with Bodhi, sometimes - should
we not have it? There are bugs in KDE packages - should we not have
them? It's just a silly assertion.
BTW, the update in question has no feedback from *anyone* yet. I'd
happily vote-by-proxy if some XO users who aren't proventesters had
posted +1s, but none have. Can anyone reading this list who has an XO
(or other Geode hardware) please test the update? Thanks.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
devel mailing list