On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 14:38 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2014-09-09 09:51 UTC-0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > QA wants a release criterion for dual boot OS X + Fedora installations. > > If this is going to be done, it should have a grammatically unambigous > name/title, and use grammatically unambigous language: > > 1-Multi-boot/multiboot is always grammatically correct if a system has more > than one independent operating system installation > > 2-Dual-boot/dual boot is never grammatically correct if a system has more > than two independent operating system installations > > 3-Dual-boot/dual boot is grammatically nebulous whenever it refers to a > bootloader menu that has more than two selections from which to choose > > If support is to exist for _more_ than one operating system installation in > addition to Fedora (e.g. Windows and Debian, or two Windows installations, or > Windows plus Fedora plus another Fedora), the limiting term "dual" should not > be used. The specification of *dual* not *multi* was intentional. IIRC the discussion, anyhow. It's not about support "existing" but us blocking release on it *working*. The code will make a best effort to configure boot for whatever OSes it finds, unless we intentionally nerf it as we may for OS x, but the criteria are about the things we absolutely require must work for us to ship the release; in this context, we decided more than two OSes was being a little too ambitious. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
