> > > Hmm, IIRC this was one case that *really happened*, and I was trying to > > > catch the flavor of our IRC discussion at the time - my memory is that > > > we were willing to accept such bugs as blockers, but we'd maybe be more > > > likely to waive them for only affecting a small amount of users or > > > being workaroundable or something like that. > > > If the explanation sounds like this, I'm actually very OK with that > > :) I'd probably avoid saying "less important", because then it sounds > > like an advice to waive everything. I think it's equally important, > > it just has different use cases. Maybe we could say something like "a > > slightly different standard of judgement may be applied to > > conditional violations in live environments, as the use cases of live > > systems and installed systems are not the same". For example, if > > shutdown didn't work properly and on some systems actually caused > > restart, that could be seen as a lesser problem on Lives. > > OK, I've added another sentence to the footnote to try and clarify this > some more. Good to go now?
Thanks, good to go. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
