Criterion revision proposal: KDE default applications

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 21:36 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > It was clear at the Go/No-Go meeting today that KDE SIG does not
> > consider this release criterion applicable/desired:
> >
> > "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
> > mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of
> > that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality
> > test."
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality
> >
> > jreznik says they consider the live image their 'polished product' where
> > everything must work, while the DVD install is more of a grab-bag - they
> > install a whole bunch of stuff, and don't think it's the end of the
> > world if one or two bits are broken.
> >
> > Given that, I propose re-wording as follows:
> >
> > "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
> > mechanism of a release-blocking live image after an installation of that
> > image must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
> >
> > So, that doesn't just apply to KDE. True, but I actually think it's a
> > reasonable revision for GNOME as well. It makes sense to see the live
> > images as defining what our 'polished core desktops' consist of, and the
> > DVD as more of a grab-bag of packages.
> 
> No that makes zero sense. You solution is not a solution at all "we
> found out that we ship random crap on the DVD that does not even start
> up ... so lets pretend we don't know about it" ... the proper solution
> (as others said) is to simply to *NOT* install random stuff by default
> just because there is space on the media.

As I've said, if people are willing to actually go out and do that, then
fine. Does desktop team actively curate the DVD-installed package set?
And to play the counter-factual game: imagine there had been a bug
analogous to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040922 in
GNOME on the day of Go/No-Go meeting. Is the desktop SIG willing to take
a stand and say 'yes, we should delay the release multiple weeks over
Christmas if such a bug is discovered'?

If so, then we can continue with the current criteria, though it would
be ideal if desktop and KDE sigs could commit to helping with the
testing.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net