On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 09:37 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
I proposed this criterion because history shows that the approach you mention (let's fix it with updates) didn't really work, at least for GNOME. So I'm trying something else, to make sure it gets the attention I believe it deserves. (We reached the same conclusion during our blocker bug review). It seems that people opinions on importance of this feature vary wildly, which is unfortunate. If we don't reach consensus, it can't be a criterion.
Extremely basic functionality of the desktop environment, like user switching, is much more important than a bug with any individual application. If we don't want to block on user switching, then it's time to take a look at the existing blocker criteria and start some significant trimming, since we currently block for less important-issues. Do we want to have more quality criteria or fewer? I'm of the opinion that we should have more if we want to expand the audience of Fedora Workstation beyond those who are currently using it. When deciding whether something is a blocker, I propose this question: "If feature X doesn't work, would a reasonable user new to Fedora switch back to his previous OS?" If there's a bug with GNOME Calculator, probably not, but if user switching doesn't work and I have multiple user accounts, then it's time to find a better distro.
It is not really relevant if something is 'basic' or not. To decide whether to block on a bug, you should look at:
1) How many users are affected ? 2) How significantly is their use of the system affected ? 3) Is there an easy workaround ?
In all of these, user switching is just not in the same league as logout or shutdown.
Having more criteria is good if you have too many qa people who can't figure out how to spend their time.
-
Matthias Clasen