<br><br>On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Matthias Clasen wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 08:23 +0100, drago01 wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Adam Williamson <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'awilliam@redhat.com')">awilliam@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 01:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:<br>
> >> Adam Williamson wrote:<br>
> >> > I don't think we'd really be correct in blocking the release for such<br>
> >> > issues - especially not Beta. We used to have 'polish' criteria for<br>
> >> > Final which at least required the icons used in the system menus - i.e.<br>
> >> > what's specified in the app's .desktop file - to be sane for all<br>
> >> > installed applications, but we dropped that (and other polish criteria)<br>
> >> > with the F19/F20 criteria re-write on the basis that they were really<br>
> >> > stretching a bit too far and would be unlikely to hold up to a 'last<br>
> >> > blocker before release' acid test. Stuff like this doesn't break<br>
> >> > anyone's use of the system catastrophically and can reasonably be fixed<br>
> >> > with updates.<br>
> >><br>
> >> But it also affects the live images (making them look very unpolished) and<br>
> >> we don't respin those.<br>
> ><br>
> > That's why I said 'reasonably' not 'perfectly' :) I can see an argument<br>
> > for blocking Final, though in practice, I don't think our current<br>
> > standards are such that it really makes sense to claim our final<br>
> > releases are so smooth as to be worth enforcing a high standard of<br>
> > polish via the blocker mechanisms<br>
><br>
> Then we should that. There is a difference between "perfect" and something that<br>
> looks obviously broken.<br>
<br>
Are we really fighting about the classification of fixed bugs here, <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes ;) </div>