Graphics adapter bugs blocker status rationale

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 21:24 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hey folks. So this morning I remembered that
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ exists - it's a rather
> > useful page for explaining bits of the blocker process that we should
> > probably refer to more often. Given that the question keeps coming up, I
> > added a section to it which explains the precedent we've established for
> > deciding blocker status for graphics hardware bugs:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#Why_isn.27t_my_graphics_card_showstopper_bug_a_blocker.3F_I_can.27t_boot.21
> 
> I disagree with "and affect at least a few different adapters"  ... if
> it is just one GPU that a lot of people use it should be sufficent to
> be a blocker (common laptop model, an APU or ironlake / ivy / snb gpu
> as those are part of the CPU and thus likely have a large userbase).
> 
> So if it is a single but commonly used GPU (large userbase) it should
> be no different than a bug that affects 3 GPUs that has a userbase as
> large as the other one.

In theory that's correct but I'm not sure there's actually such a thing
as a single adapter with enough users to constitute a blocker on its
own. The more popular Intel ones would be closest to qualifying, I
guess. Of course, it's hard to prove this by smolt, see my narrative on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847818 . Still, I'll see if
I can come up with clearer wording, thanks for the note.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net