RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20
awilliam at redhat.com
Sat Jan 25 07:37:42 UTC 2014
drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>
>> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:56 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> > As a side note, it also needs to be discussed how such a key
>>> > the bluetooth stack could go unnoticed through QA, and how to
>>> > from happening again.
>>> Indeed. I wondered the same myself.
>> I'm somewhat cheered that our product has apparently reached the
>> level where people consider a Bluetooth audio profile to be a 'key
>> feature', but so far as our QA standards are concerned, it ain't.
>> This didn't really 'pass unnoticed' through QA. I noticed it, and was
>> supremely unconcerned.
>We should stop this "its crap anyway" attitude. That's the reason why
>people perceive fedora
>as beta / unstable / breaks often etc.
>Did you at least file a bug?
>devel mailing list
>devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
It's not about "it's crap anyway", it's about our trade off between
completeness and getting new stuff done. Fedora has *always* accepted
major changes before they reach full feature parity with the thing
they're replacing, and I don't see any indication anyone's expecting
that to change.
Having said that I may have to go back and check things, because my
memory is that this is something everyone involved (including the devs
and fesco) knew about at the time, but it's being discussed as if it
were a big surprise.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the devel