On 02/ 5/10 01:05 PM, Dave Miner wrote: > On 02/ 5/10 01:33 PM, Keith Mitchell wrote: >> >> >> On 02/ 5/10 09:44 AM, Dave Miner wrote: >>> On 02/ 5/10 12:09 PM, Keith Mitchell wrote: >>> ... >>>> In summary, I would like to propose fixing 9698 using the first >>>> solution >>>> above (http://cr.opensolaris.org/~kemitche/9698_b/), opening >>>> another bug >>>> against this ICT to explore the need for finer grained control over >>>> when >>>> we can or cannot set the keyboard layout, and let the remaining issues >>>> get captured by the fix to bug 14247. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think your proposed solution is biased in the right direction. >>> The install is still reported as failing, and that will continue to >>> generate noise on mailing lists, additional bugs that will be >>> duplicates, etc. Keyboard layout settings don't matter at all for the >>> tip line systems - that mapping is done on the client system, so >>> having failures occurring in those cases is really a poor result. >>> >>> I'd suggest that the failure is perhaps logged, but otherwise ignored. >>> We can then release note the log message and the cases that we know >>> leave the keyboard layout unset. >>> >>> Dave >> >> In that case, how do you feel about my originally proposed solution: >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~kemitche/9698_a/ >> > > I'm OK with it. > > Dave
Sarah, http://cr.opensolaris.org/~kemitche/9698_a/ I know you had some concerns about this proposed solution on Thursday. I'm wondering if your thoughts are still the same on this? This is with the assumption that a fix for bug 14247 would revisit this ICT (as well as others) and determine what scenarios are full failures, which are ignorable "warnings," and which are successful executions of the ICT. - Keith
