gtk3 broken/missing icons on kde

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 11:19 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 08:23 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 01:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> > I don't think we'd really be correct in blocking the release for such
> > >> > issues - especially not Beta. We used to have 'polish' criteria for
> > >> > Final which at least required the icons used in the system menus - i.e.
> > >> > what's specified in the app's .desktop file - to be sane for all
> > >> > installed applications, but we dropped that (and other polish criteria)
> > >> > with the F19/F20 criteria re-write on the basis that they were really
> > >> > stretching a bit too far and would be unlikely to hold up to a 'last
> > >> > blocker before release' acid test. Stuff like this doesn't break
> > >> > anyone's use of the system catastrophically and can reasonably be fixed
> > >> > with updates.
> > >>
> > >> But it also affects the live images (making them look very unpolished) and
> > >> we don't respin those.
> > >
> > > That's why I said 'reasonably' not 'perfectly' :) I can see an argument
> > > for blocking Final, though in practice, I don't think our current
> > > standards are such that it really makes sense to claim our final
> > > releases are so smooth as to be worth enforcing a high standard of
> > > polish via the blocker mechanisms
> > 
> > Then we should that. There is a difference between "perfect" and something that
> > looks obviously broken.
> 
> Are we really fighting about the classification of fixed bugs here, or
> is there a new issue that I am not aware of ?

It's become a question of whether there should be a Beta or Final
requirement for icons to be present / "look good", I think.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net