On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 10:40 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:15 PM Patrick O'Callaghan
> On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 17:51 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > For the purpose of this criterion, user switching doesn't include
> > between different sessions of the *same* user.
> Rather than "doesn't include" I'd suggest "need not
I'm not a native speaker, but that doesn't seem to convey what I'm trying
to say. "For the purpose of this criterion" is the important part. We
want different sessions of the same user to be considered blocking. So in
this criterion, it's not considered user switching. In general sense, it
probably is (but that doesn't matter).
I agree with Kamil here, I find his original wording better. "Need not
include" implies that it *could* be included, which is not what we're
trying to say, we are trying to say it's definitely not included - that
a bug which only affected switching between multiple sessions of one
user would not be release-blocking.
> Maybe also add wording to suggest this doesn't cover switching between
> two different DEs (though that's actually the use case I'm most
> interested in personally).
I did. See this explanation note:
"The "in their default configuration" part is there to cover only cases
where the system hasn't been modified in a substantial (and relevant) way.
This will exclude cases where people e.g. install several desktop
environments, replace their DM for a different one, tweak systemd settings,
or install a non-default graphics driver."
Perhaps I can add it as another footnote box directly to the criterion, I'm
not sure. AdamW, what do you think?
I agree that "in their default configuration" covers it, but an
explicit footnote couldn't hurt, it's always good to be clear.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net