Do you think this is a security risk and if not is it a bad UI decision?
drago01 at gmail.com
Sun May 5 12:43:32 UTC 2013
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 15:58 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
>> > If they do decide to keep the change, you could escalate it to FESCo.
>> > However, (speaking only for myself here) I would be VERY reluctant to
>> > override maintainers on their packages on something that is a design
>> > decision/judgement call. Where would we draw the line?
>> I would rather have QA have move oversight on these things. As I only
>> discovered this while doing QA.
>> Excuse my cynicism here but this would also require some change to the
>> QA process itself and what are blockers and what are not and the "nice
>> to have" process which should be renamed "we won't hold our breath".
> I don't really see any special place for QA in reviewing design
> decisions. I've said it before, but my opinion is that the job of QA is
> to determine whether things are working as intended, not to decide what
> the intentions should be.
No but if QA had adopted the "keyboard layouts must work" criterion
that I have proposed multiple times
the anaconda maintainers would have to spent their time on fixing the
real issue rather than papering over
it in such obscure ways.
More information about the devel