On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 15:17 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 15:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > I know the installation tests are
> > > dual boot, following a restore of macOS.
> >
> > Um. But *you* are the person
On 25 November 2016 at 17:17, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 15:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> I know the installation tests are
>>> dual boot, following a restore of macOS.
>>
>> Um. But *you* are the person who wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 15:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I know the installation tests are
>> dual boot, following a restore of macOS.
>
> Um. But *you* are the person who wrote:
>
> "2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old
On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 15:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I know the installation tests are
> dual boot, following a restore of macOS.
Um. But *you* are the person who wrote:
"2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
used for total install and not dual boot. It would not
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 13:53 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > But if the installer is (completely) broken, it might as well be dropped.
>> > Alas, it's not completely broken.
On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 09:27 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > The problem is that we didn't get around to running the test until the
> > day before the go/no-go. There's a lot of stuff to test, and anything
> > which only one person is likely to test is a risk. Frankly speaking,
> > given how hum
On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 09:26 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
> > used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
> > issue.
>
> The testing should be switched to be a dual-boot test, as it's what
> Mac us
On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 13:53 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> >
> > But if the installer is (completely) broken, it might as well be dropped.
> > Alas, it's not completely broken.
>
> Unwieldy, perhaps. It's kinda hard to argue that the inst
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> But if the installer is (completely) broken, it might as well be dropped.
> Alas, it's not completely broken.
Unwieldy, perhaps. It's kinda hard to argue that the installer needs
to be this complicated, that Fedora (mainly QA) has to put
2016-11-25 17:37 GMT+01:00 Stephen John Smoogen :
> On 25 November 2016 at 09:27, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> > 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
>>> > used for total insta
On 25 November 2016 at 09:27, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> > 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
>> > used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
>> > is
- Original Message -
> For that sort of comparison then comparing Macs to any other consumer
> desktop is not possible and is its own category of hardware. I can buy
> 2-3 equivalent memory/cpu/video ASUS systems for a Macbook.
Coo, we might need new computers for the GNOME events box.
- Original Message -
> The reality is that QA is thinly spread in general. Making this
> blocker "about Macs" is a misleading conclusion, there's a grain of
> truth in it, but it's mistaking the forest for the trees. Next time
> there's a release blocking bug, it'll just be something els
- Original Message -
> On 17 November 2016 at 10:22, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >
> >> No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people
> >> really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do
> >> just a little o
- Original Message -
> On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
> > used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
> > issue. The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware d
2016-11-18 15:53 GMT+01:00 Stephen John Smoogen :
> On 18 November 2016 at 02:39, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> > Apples and oranges. There's no installer on ARM. There's no need to wipe
>>> > all your data on a desktop system that you have one unit of.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is, we support ana
2016-11-18 19:37 GMT+01:00 Chris Murphy :
> Options:
> 1. Keep the mactel-boot stuff (pretty but weird), and write up test
> cases specifically to account for the weirdness in particular how to
> reset the state of the computer so it's possible to do clean installs.
> There are a couple of ways to
Options:
1. Keep the mactel-boot stuff (pretty but weird), and write up test
cases specifically to account for the weirdness in particular how to
reset the state of the computer so it's possible to do clean installs.
There are a couple of ways to do this. Burden is on Mac testers.
2. Explore treat
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:01:52AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I would not be at all surprised to see a response to 1) be an effort to
>> define some specific hardware configurations that Workstation targets.
>
> Not completely by coinc
On 18 November 2016 at 02:39, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > Apples and oranges. There's no installer on ARM. There's no need to wipe
>> > all your data on a desktop system that you have one unit of.
>>
>> Yes, there is, we support anaconda just like on all the other arches.
>> It's not as wi
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:01:52AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I would not be at all surprised to see a response to 1) be an effort to
> define some specific hardware configurations that Workstation targets.
Not completely by coincidence, I raised this at a Red Hat meeting this
week. Since Red
Hi,
> > Apples and oranges. There's no installer on ARM. There's no need to wipe
> > all your data on a desktop system that you have one unit of.
>
> Yes, there is, we support anaconda just like on all the other arches.
> It's not as widely used as people like to just consume the disk images
>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On 2016-11-17 11:22 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> For some time now, the system partition is not HFS+ and not
>> identifiable as HFS+ and cannot be mounted on Linux in any way. The
>> default installation uses Core Storage (Apple's LVM lik
On 2016-11-17 11:22 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
For some time now, the system partition is not HFS+ and not
identifiable as HFS+ and cannot be mounted on Linux in any way. The
default installation uses Core Storage (Apple's LVM like thing), and
even converts non-Core Storage systems upon upgrade so t
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On 2016-11-17 10:30 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Not exactly. I do the same tests every cycle and assumed I had done
>> those tests, and I still think I did, but it's possible there's some
>> unusual nuance in my particular setup that cau
On 2016-11-17 10:30 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Not exactly. I do the same tests every cycle and assumed I had done
those tests, and I still think I did, but it's possible there's some
unusual nuance in my particular setup that caused me to not hit the
bug. But I'm not traveling with my Mac at the mo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
> used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
> issue. The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to
> day.
The age is pro
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 17 November 2016 at 09:08, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> On 11 November 2016 at 03:20, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As a mac owner (although one that is not very well supported by
>>> >
On 17 November 2016 at 11:40, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>> On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>>
>>> 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
>>> used for total install and not dual boot. It would no
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
>> used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
>> issue. The Fedora QA group also has
On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
issue. The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to
day.
This bit isn't quite true. We
On 17 November 2016 at 10:22, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
>> No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people
>> really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do
>> just a little of the work in an organized fashion. Put togethe
- Original Message -
> No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people
> really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do
> just a little of the work in an organized fashion. Put together a Mac
> SIG that focuses on getting the best experience on t
>
>> No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people
>> really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do
>> just a little of the work in an organized fashion. Put together a Mac
>> SIG that focuses on getting the best experience on the hardware. Send
>> some
On 17 November 2016 at 09:08, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> On 11 November 2016 at 03:20, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > As a mac owner (although one that is not very well supported by
>> > Linux*) I really appreciate the fact that Fedora works. And saying you
>
- Original Message -
> On 11 November 2016 at 03:20, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> >
> >
> > As a mac owner (although one that is not very well supported by
> > Linux*) I really appreciate the fact that Fedora works. And saying you
> > do not want to support that hardware anymore just because y
On 11/14/2016 05:20 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
If you are going to remove functionality/hardware support you should
at least announce it someway otherwise people (users and contributors)
will lose faith in your project.
I do not have an agenda here---I am just a Fedora-using grandpa on the
sidel
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Chris Murphy
> wrote:
>> What's in place right now is a release blocking criterion that was not
>> being met, so the release was blocked. The criterion is not a secret
>> or new, the process is not secret or
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 10:28 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> I'm not counting change sets. I'm counting user distinguishable UIs,
> and those are four distinctly different interfaces and experiences and
> they each even have their own names:
> oldui
> newui auto
> newui custom
> blivet-gui
I under
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> It is entirely possible, of course, to be 'greatly improved' and still
> 'excessive'. You didn't argue that the installer is too buggy, you
> argued that it hasn't got any less buggy ('stability or blocker bugs')
> since Fedora 17. So no
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 19:01 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> I must have missed that. Sorry. Is there a wiki where you can see what
> has been tested like the "normal" test days?
Well, yes. That's what the results pages, that all the announcement
emails link to, show. The announcement emails also lin
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 19:00 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> 2016-11-15 17:31 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
> > On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 17:27 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> > > Maybe the release criteria should reflect that then. Right now it says
> > > that mac support is a criteria for release.
> >
> >
2016-11-15 17:30 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
> On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 17:15 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> 2016-11-15 8:43 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
>> > On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 07:35 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> > > If something is in the release criteria I expect the feature to be
>> > > present
2016-11-15 17:31 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
> On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 17:27 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> Maybe the release criteria should reflect that then. Right now it says
>> that mac support is a criteria for release.
>
> You do remember the topic of this thread, right?
There is a difference
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Tunek
> wrote:
>>> How do you fix it if you can't install the release? Do you make a new
>>> release with all the testing again (to make sure you
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> How do you fix it if you can't install the release? Do you make a new
>> release with all the testing again (to make sure you do not have other
>> regression bugs)?
>
> Anaconda has updates
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 11:57 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > > If that is not the case anymore it would be good if that would be
> > > communicated in advance so that all users on mac hw could either
> > > switch distros or gang together to make a re
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 08:36 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 14:30 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Josh Boyer
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the features were developed and tested du
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > If that is not the case anymore it would be good if that would be
> > communicated in advance so that all users on mac hw could either
> > switch distros or gang together to make a remix or something.
>
> You are confusing Fedora with a company. T
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 14:30 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Josh Boyer
>> wrote:
>>
>> > If the features were developed and tested during the creation of the
>> > release, why would they fail criteria at the
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 17:27 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> Maybe the release criteria should reflect that then. Right now it says
> that mac support is a criteria for release.
You do remember the topic of this thread, right?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 17:15 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> 2016-11-15 8:43 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
> > On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 07:35 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> > > If something is in the release criteria I expect the feature to be
> > > present in the release. If the feature in question has wor
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> 2016-11-15 17:12 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer :
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Andreas Tunek
>> wrote:
>>> 2016-11-15 15:35 GMT+01:00 Stephen John Smoogen :
On 15 November 2016 at 01:35, Andreas Tunek
wrote:
> 2016-11-15 1:06
2016-11-15 17:12 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer :
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Andreas Tunek
> wrote:
>> 2016-11-15 15:35 GMT+01:00 Stephen John Smoogen :
>>> On 15 November 2016 at 01:35, Andreas Tunek wrote:
2016-11-15 1:06 GMT+01:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek :
>>>
> You seem to confus
2016-11-15 8:43 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
> On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 07:35 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> If something is in the release criteria I expect the feature to be
>> present in the release. If the feature in question has worked for ~20
>> Fedora releases it is not my first priority to test
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> 2016-11-15 15:35 GMT+01:00 Stephen John Smoogen :
>> On 15 November 2016 at 01:35, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>>> 2016-11-15 1:06 GMT+01:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek :
>>
You seem to confuse something being in the release criteria, and
>>>
2016-11-15 13:45 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer :
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Tunek
> wrote:
>> 2016-11-14 22:26 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer :
>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Andreas Tunek
>>> wrote:
2016-11-14 14:01 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher :
> On 11/13/2016 01:46 PM, Ms Sanchez
2016-11-15 15:35 GMT+01:00 Stephen John Smoogen :
> On 15 November 2016 at 01:35, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> 2016-11-15 1:06 GMT+01:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek :
>
>>> You seem to confuse something being in the release criteria, and
>>> something being possible. But that's secondary. If you would
On 15 November 2016 at 01:35, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> 2016-11-15 1:06 GMT+01:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek :
>> You seem to confuse something being in the release criteria, and
>> something being possible. But that's secondary. If you would like this
>> scenario to be supported, then commit to te
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant
for
stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play
well with
open-source (for example, switching to wifi-o
>>> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant
>>> for
>>> stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well
>>> with
>>> open-source (for example, switching to wifi-only devices and shipping
>>> Broadcom
>>> chipsets w
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> 2016-11-14 22:26 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer :
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Andreas Tunek
>> wrote:
>>> 2016-11-14 14:01 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher :
On 11/13/2016 01:46 PM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/16 14:33, Steph
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 07:35 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> If something is in the release criteria I expect the feature to be
> present in the release. If the feature in question has worked for ~20
> Fedora releases it is not my first priority to test, unless there is
> specific communication otherw
2016-11-15 1:06 GMT+01:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek :
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:52:15PM +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> AFAIK, you have been able to install Fedora on Intel Macs since 2008
>> (that was when I first tried). To not be able to install Fedora on
>> (Intel) Macs is a regression.
>>
On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 14:30 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > If the features were developed and tested during the creation of the
> > release, why would they fail criteria at the last minute?
>
> Bit rot. That particular code is being modified
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:52:15PM +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> AFAIK, you have been able to install Fedora on Intel Macs since 2008
> (that was when I first tried). To not be able to install Fedora on
> (Intel) Macs is a regression.
>
> > Also, there is a large difference between shipping a rele
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> If the features were developed and tested during the creation of the
> release, why would they fail criteria at the last minute?
Bit rot. That particular code is being modified, and there's no
testing on hardware affected by those changes befo
2016-11-14 22:57 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
> On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 22:13 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> It not only means
>> that the work people did developing and testing the features where
>> wasted
>
> The change in question clearly was *not* tested as regards OS X,
> because the logic is ver
On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 22:13 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> It not only means
> that the work people did developing and testing the features where
> wasted
The change in question clearly was *not* tested as regards OS X,
because the logic is very clearly broken and could not possibly have
worked pro
2016-11-14 22:26 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer :
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Andreas Tunek
> wrote:
>> 2016-11-14 14:01 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher :
>>> On 11/13/2016 01:46 PM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
On 11/11/16 14:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Just to address this specificall
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> 2016-11-14 14:01 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher :
>> On 11/13/2016 01:46 PM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/16 14:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
stuff
2016-11-14 14:01 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher :
> On 11/13/2016 01:46 PM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/16 14:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
>>> stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play we
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:01:07AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> So I assert that while support for Apple hardware is desirable, I don't
> believe
> that the lack of it should prevent us from shipping Fedora for all the other
> hardware that we do support.
Hi,
That is exactly what I was tryi
On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 12:06 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 10:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > FWIW, I did not really get the sense at all that people were voting
> > for
> > it as a blocker purely on the grounds that "we can get a fix in at
> > the
> > last minute". A one week s
On 14 November 2016 at 12:06, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 10:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> FWIW, I did not really get the sense at all that people were voting for
> it as a blocker purely on the grounds that "we can get a fix in at the
> last minute". A one week slip might feel s
On 11/10/2016 10:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
FWIW, I did not really get the sense at all that people were voting for
it as a blocker purely on the grounds that "we can get a fix in at the
last minute". A one week slip might feel short to you, I dunno, but I
think most release process people t
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Certainly. My point is that I don't feel that we are necessarily responsible
> for
> working around their antagonism either. Yes, it would be nice if Fedora
> supported all hardware ever made. But the simple truth is that Apple tries
>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
> stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well with
> open-source (for example, switching to wifi-only devices and shipping Broadcom
> c
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Josh Boyer
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 13:31 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2016-11-1
0/f25-final-gono-go-meeting.2016-11-10-17.00.log.html
>>>
>>> >
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 11:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 08:33 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
>>> stuffing their machines with hardware from ve
On 11/13/2016 01:46 PM, Ms Sanchez wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/16 14:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
>> stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well with
>> open-source (for example, switching to wif
On 11/11/2016 11:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 08:33 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
>> stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well with
>> open-source (for example, swit
On 11/11/16 14:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well with
open-source (for example, switching to wifi-only devices and shipping Broadcom
chipsets with no ope
On 11/11/16 10:08, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote:
The reason is pretty simple: very few people have a disposable Mac.
About 90% of the time, the Mac people want to install Fedora on is
their personal laptop. So of course they're not willing to test
installing some random pre-Beta nightly s
On 12/11/16 08:13, Kevin Kofler wrote:
How is it "at the expense of every other platform we support"? It's not like
the fix is going to stop them from working. It is not a catastrophe to ship
one week later.
I don't use a Mac, I also don't dual-boot, but still I fail to see why this
issue sho
Josh Boyer wrote:
> What I cannot get my head around though is how we've essentially made
> a decision based on perceived marketing value of those target users at
> the expense of every other platform we support.
How is it "at the expense of every other platform we support"? It's not like
the fix
2016-11-11 10:04 GMT+01:00 Fabio Alessandro Locati :
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:20:08AM +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> As a mac owner (although one that is not very well supported by
>> Linux*) I really appreciate the fact that Fedora works. And saying you
>> do not want to support that hardware
On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 19:19 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Josh Boyer
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Michael Catanzaro
> > wrote:
> > > My $0.02 is that none of the reasons we requested the blocker criterion
> > > have changed. Dual boot with mac
On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 09:41 -0800, Richard Johnson wrote:
> I'm very new to this but I'd like to help out. I actually saw the
> problem a little while back, when I tried to mount an HFS+ FS onto my
> Fedora mac. It mounted ro.
That in itself is not a bug (except in the sense of 'missing feature'
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
>> My $0.02 is that none of the reasons we requested the blocker criterion
>> have changed. Dual boot with macOS is very important to attracting new
>> users -- we're explicitly targ
I'm very new to this but I'd like to help out. I actually saw the problem a
little while back, when I tried to mount an HFS+ FS onto my Fedora mac. It
mounted ro. I would definitely be interested in helping out on "fedora on Mac"
testing. I'm currently looking through bugzilla to see if ther
On 11 November 2016 at 03:20, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>
>
> As a mac owner (although one that is not very well supported by
> Linux*) I really appreciate the fact that Fedora works. And saying you
> do not want to support that hardware anymore just because you found a
> regression/bug is kind of lame
On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 08:33 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for
> stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well with
> open-source (for example, switching to wifi-only devices and shipping Broadcom
> c
On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 09:08 +, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote:
> I think VM testing on Mac would not produce any more insights than VM
> testing on PC.
VM testing on PCs produces plenty of insights, it's how we do *most*
testing now. It's perfectly fine for testing bootloader stuff, for
instanc
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 07:55:06AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
> > My $0.02 is that none of the reasons we requested the blocker criterion
> > have changed. Dual boot with macOS is very important to attracting new
> > users -- we're expli
On 11/10/2016 04:31 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2016-11-10/f25-final-gono-go-meeting.2016-11-10-17.00.log.html
17:12:02 I've never understood why we would block on failures
to run on hardware that actively tries to make it difficult to r
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 07:09:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's also worth noting that there's a possible scenario where we could
> completely nerf the OS X install here. It's a fairly *unlikely*
> scenario - the user would have to manually disable journalling on the
> macOS partition - but
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> My $0.02 is that none of the reasons we requested the blocker criterion
> have changed. Dual boot with macOS is very important to attracting new
> users -- we're explicitly targeting macOS users, that's the user group
> where we think we
My $0.02 is that none of the reasons we requested the blocker criterion
have changed. Dual boot with macOS is very important to attracting new
users -- we're explicitly targeting macOS users, that's the user group
where we think we have real potential for significant growth -- and I
continue to pre
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:34:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >> One thing I forgot to mention in my original reply to jwb (it was
>> >> getting long) is that there's a conundrum that applies quite
>> >> specifically to Mac support, and it's this: there are quite a lot of
>> >> people wh
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
