F15 blocker? lvm-monitor of snapshot hangs at reboot/shutdown

[James Laska]

On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 11:32 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:10 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 10:03 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> > > 
> > > > But that's a bit open to interpretation.  For example, it could be said
> > > > (I think I even did) that reboot/shutdown does work, it just takes
> > > > forever.  Anyone else think it would be worthwhile to adjust the Beta
> > > > criteria to something like ...
> > > >         
> > > >         "The desktop's offered mechanisms (if any) for shutting down,
> > > >         logging out and rebooting must work and perform the intended
> > > >         function in a reasonable time."
> > > 
> > > That's against the original intention of the criterion: the criterion is
> > > one of the set that came in from the desktop team, and they specifically
> > > wanted it to be about whether the desktop is able to trigger the action
> > > correctly, not whether the action actually completes successfully.
> > > That's not to say that we might not want to change it, but we could
> > > perhaps split it up, and it's something worth taking note of.
> > 
> > I think it should be obvious that we not only want the action to be
> > triggered, but also to succeed. 
> 
> Well, the opposite was the original position: that it wasn't the desktop
> team's job to worry about if the kernel / systemd / initscripts /
> whatever had a bug which prevented the operation completing, it was only
> desktop team's job to make sure the operation fired correctly.
> 
> I don't want to split hairs too finely, I just want to make sure we
> don't lose anything of our original intent :)

Adding this small text at the end of the existing criteria seems to be
the simplest approach </opinion>.  I wasn't anticipating that the
desktop team would be responsible for fixing any bugs in that criteria,
considering the realm of possible failures could be exhaustive.

The only part I'm not 100% comfortable with is the phrasing, "in a
reasonable time."  That seems too open for subjectivity.  I think I'd be
fine leaving that out and simply stating that the desired function must
work as intended.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
James
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110426/b8743853/attachment.bin