#2241 F32 Self-Contained Change: Better Thermal Management for the Workstation
Closed: Rejected 10 months ago by churchyard. Opened a year ago by bcotton.

Better thermal management and peak performance on Intel CPUs by including thermald in the default install.


There was no reply by the change owners in the thread. -1

After a week, this is +0,0,-4, according to the policy, I'm tagging it with meeting.

Metadata Update from @churchyard:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

a year ago

I'm actually not having the problems I mentioned in the devel@ thread - but I also can't tell that it makes any difference at all.

Is it practical to stuff this into updates-testing for a much longer period of time? Sorta like an opt in to endurance testing with a Fedora release? I kinda wonder if the change owners just need more data than they'd get from Rawhide users, but without risking everyone by default. But if it's not installed by default, how would it become installed if u-t is enabled (make enabling u-t the trigger).

We discussed this today's meeting:
AGREED: Ask the change owners to fill in the change page, revisit in two weeks (+9, 0, 0)

I'll also post on fedora-devel.

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue untagged with: meeting

11 months ago

I'll also post on fedora-devel.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2SZE2IWFBNWTYVPH4MCOSQSKII27KK7U/

There have been no edits on the wiki page since FPM submitted it here.

Should we reject this for now and ask Change Owners to reopen once they have a clear story?

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

10 months ago

AGREED: Better Thermal Management change is rejected for now (+6, 0,
-0) (mhroncok, 15:26:09)

https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-11-04/fesco.2019-11-04-15.01.html

Metadata Update from @churchyard:
- Issue untagged with: meeting
- Issue close_status updated to: Rejected
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

10 months ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata