On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Adam Williamson
What would actually be an *improvement* is if we killed litd and
'cp mode', and only supported the new dd-only luc and dd-style writes.
That would substantially reduce the exposure we currently have to three
different writing modes: dd, litd, and luc-cp.
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Well if LUC is blocking on Linux, Windows, and OS X, that's
> added to a matrix that has the same number of column as the total
> number of release blocking media per arch.
Well no it's not, because we already have one row for luc in the
matrix. And we really haven't clearly defined in exactly what
circumstances we expect luc to work; you can argue under the current
criteria that we *already* require it to work on Fedora and Windows,
since the wiki page on USB writing (which the criteria links to) lists
it as a recommended tool for those platforms. If the current luc
actually ran on OS X we'd probably list it for OS X too.
I can see blocking on Windows LUC, because how else do they make
media? If we really got down to blocking on OS X or Fedora LUC would
we really block, or just expect people to use litd or dd?
And if any would block, does it make more sense to use Accepted0Day,
rather than actually hold up the release?