----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Murphy" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" <desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:14:44 AM > Subject: Re: Tech Spec, System Installer > > > On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > You might need to provide more details and background in posts like > > this, Chris, considering the context. I don't think the desktop team is > > as familiar with the ins and outs of installer partitioning as the > > anaconda and QA teams. They don't deal with it every day. :) > > OK I'm not sure how or what to provide that wouldn't also be obscenely > verbose. > > My premise is that the present installer paths (Automatic and Manual) do not > constitute limiting the user interaction to the minimum. But maybe all or > most WG members consider the installer already meets these requirements? > > For comparison, by at least two orders of magnitude, the Windows and OS X > installers are more minimalist. They each offer a handful of installed > outcomes (including dual boot), whereas Anaconda Automatic/guided path alone > offers dozens of outcomes, and the Manual/custom paths offers hundreds > possibly infinite. > > QA presently lacks the resources to test all possible installer outcomes. In > fact it's likely that most outcomes aren't tested, and even if not certainly > a significant amount aren't tested. This directly impacts user experience > because for those untested outcomes they are actually the tester, possibly > for the first time. That's also not minimum contact especially if they get a > crash and have to start over, or the resulting installation doesn't work. I > think it's sane for users to expect everything presented in a GUI installer > is at least somehow minimally tested, yet QA simply can't make that claim > right now. > > So should the installer be permitted to enable users to created untested > (actually untestable in some cases) outcomes? I'd say no, but that's my own > bias. So what's the WG's bias? What do they mean by "the minimum" for user > interaction with the installer? > I agree with your bias, I think it would be good if you since you are a domain expert here maybe come up with a more detailed text proposal for this part of the spec? -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
