On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Adam Williamson <awill...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 15:58 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote: > >> > If they do decide to keep the change, you could escalate it to FESCo. >> > However, (speaking only for myself here) I would be VERY reluctant to >> > override maintainers on their packages on something that is a design >> > decision/judgement call. Where would we draw the line? >> >> I would rather have QA have move oversight on these things. As I only >> discovered this while doing QA. >> >> Excuse my cynicism here but this would also require some change to the >> QA process itself and what are blockers and what are not and the "nice >> to have" process which should be renamed "we won't hold our breath". > > I don't really see any special place for QA in reviewing design > decisions. I've said it before, but my opinion is that the job of QA is > to determine whether things are working as intended, not to decide what > the intentions should be.
No but if QA had adopted the "keyboard layouts must work" criterion that I have proposed multiple times the anaconda maintainers would have to spent their time on fixing the real issue rather than papering over it in such obscure ways. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
