Graphics adapter bugs blocker status rationale

[drago01]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

My point is the number of affected GPUs (i.e whether 1 vs. 1000) is
irrelevant, the number of affected users (10 vs. 100000) is what
matters.