On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:00 PM John M. Harris Jr <joh...@splentity.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, December 15, 2019 9:46:21 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 9:32 PM John M. Harris Jr <joh...@splentity.com> > > wrote: > > > > It simply is not where we are now, nor have we been "for a while". > > > > > > Based on what facts? You merely repeating yourself over and over until > > people give up? > > Based on the fact that this actually has been getting tested. You can claim > otherwise, but that does not make it so. While the idea may have come up, and > I wouldn't be aware of that, nor would it matter, it is not the case that it > simply has become the case that it is not done.
First, I haven't claimed it's not getting tested. Second, you have used a fallacy of circular reasoning. The test is being done because it's required to be done. That the test is being done is not a supporting fact that testing should be compulsory. That it's usually a full time Red Hat employee doing the testing, suggests that this criterion is not important to the community - except apparently when it comes time to complain about dropping the release criterion. > > The facts are in emails and IRC conversations Adam previously cited in > > this very thread. This isn't a new problem or concern. And i was > > involved in those conversations. I'm not making things up and just > > saying them as if I wish they were true, or as if saying things makes > > them true. > > Please see above. Additionally, there is no reason to be hostile about this. Please don't waste your time, you can't make me angry. > > > It is completely arbitrary. It works right now. Testing it requires very > > > little user time, and only needs to be done after automated tests have > > > already passed. > > > > > > hy·per·bo·le > > /hīˈpərbəlē/ > > noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles > > exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. > > > > > > > > The change proposal lays out clear subjective and objective reasoning, > > and the change proposal process includes this now 70 some odd email > > thread discussion, and it's not yet decided by FESCo. These are > > objective processes. You calling them completely arbitrary cannot be > > taken seriously. It's an unserious ridiculous characterization. > > That is, by definition, not hyperbole. It was meant to be taken seriously, and > is an issue that needs to be addressed. I refuse because the word you used has a meaning contrary to the facts at hand: ar·bi·trar·y /ˈärbəˌtrerē/ adjective: arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. This proposal is not based on anyone's personal whim. The change process being used are not based on whim. They are part of a rational system, one which you are mischaracterizing and prejudging the outcome. You do this by claiming the process is random when plainly it is not at all random. It has a structure that you merely do not like, not that it is lacking in structure. >This is not the only change I am > referring to. We've been in the habit of dropping things that work, with no > real reasons lately. For example, look at dropped x86 support, and soon we > will be dropping Python 2. We have already had several Python 2 packages > dropped simply because they refused to move to Python 3. This is an ongoing > issue, where everything considered "old" is just abandoned, and it is hurting > the user base. It is clear that is where we're headed with this Change as > well. As soon as these tests don't need to be done before a release, they > won't be done before a release, and we'll have a release that has broken CD/ > DVD images. Why demand that people become emotionally traumatized in advance of fantasy bugs, instead of sticking to facts and logical arguments? You do a disservice to valid arguments in favor of retaining the release criterion. You are pulling off a bandaid on old wounds, making a false connection between them and this one, and then appeal to the users as higher authority. And it amounts to sadfishing, and doing so on their behalf without their permission. I've told you before, I will not participate in these attempts at emotional manipulation. There are many hundreds of bugs fixed prior to each release, and they are discovered and fixed by the Fedora community despite no release criterion existing. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
