Bug 737390

Summary:	When upgrading fc15 to fc16-Beta.TC2 Progress Bar counts cleanup as one package even though cleaning up 900+
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Robert Lightfoot <BobLfoot>
Component:	anaconda	Assignee:	Anaconda Maintenance Team <anaconda-maint-list>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	16	CC:	anaconda-maint-list, athmanem, awilliam, dennis, johannbg, jonathan, jsmith, rbergero, robatino, tflink, vanmeeuwen+fedora
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	RejectedBlocker
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-09-14 14:02:11 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Robert Lightfoot 2011-09-11 18:43:34 UTC

Description of problem:
Progress Bar gives the user a false sense that install is almost complete because cleanup takes the bar space of 1 package although cleaning up 900+

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
beta.TC2

How reproducible:
Update from FC15 to FC16

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Update by any means
2. Get problem
3.
  
Actual results:
Progress Bar misreports progress

Expected results:
Cleanup should show as the time it takes on progress bar

Additional info:

Comment 1 Adam Williamson 2011-09-12 19:40:27 UTC

this doesn't seem like a blocker bug to me. can you point out what criterion it violates? thanks.

Comment 2 Chris Lumens 2011-09-12 20:55:40 UTC

I think this is unlikely to get addressed given that most of our UI time is about to be spent on working on the rewrite.

Comment 3 Adam Williamson 2011-09-13 01:32:42 UTC

We don't have another blocker review till Friday but we need to decide on blocker status of all uncertain bugs by tomorrow, so can people please vote here?

I vote -1 blocker -1 nth, unless there's something I'm missing about the impact of this. It's a valid bug, but it's essentially cosmetic.

Comment 4 Othman Madjoudj 2011-09-13 13:48:51 UTC

-1 Blocker, +1 NTH but I might be wrong for NTH, because I seem to recall this minor issue on older release

Comment 5 Tim Flink 2011-09-13 16:01:42 UTC

This seems purely cosmetic to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'm -1 blocker and -1 NTH.

Since we have -3 blocker and -3 NTH, I'm changing this to a rejected blocker.

Comment 6 Robert Lightfoot 2011-09-13 19:47:59 UTC

I stand corrected on the blocker status and apologize for the miss-classification - we learn from our mistakes.

Comment 7 Adam Williamson 2011-09-13 19:57:38 UTC

you don't have to apologize, nothing really happened wrong - you proposed the bug, it was considered and rejected. we'd always prefer to have bugs proposed and rejected than have one which should have been accepted not get proposed!