Graphics adapter bugs blocker status rationale

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 17:25 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> 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.

Yep, as I said you're correct on that, and I'll try and come up with
better wording.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
adamw
adamw