Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx) said:
>> > Directed more broadly at all three products:
>> >
>> > Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4
>> > for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions in the "guided"
>> > mode. All is fair game in the "custom" mode.
>> >
>> > Also, for the sake of everyone's sanity, as we discuss this specific
>> > proposal, let's hold the conversation to devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > (making this the last cross-posted message in the thread).
>>
>> ... I understand that synergy can help, but given we likely expect usage
>> of all(*) the local fileystems, is there a reason the three produces need to
>> share partitioning setup?
>>
>> (*) well, not reiserfs
>
> We can expect use of them, but if all the products agree, then we at
> least have one default that we can test to destruction. As discussed in
> another thread around here somewhere, we (QA) would like to return to
> the clear distinction between custom- and non-custom partitioning, where
> non-custom is as 'choice-free' as plausible and correspondingly
> reliable, and custom is a best-effort thing.

Can you elaborate on how that's eases the test matrix?

As I said in a conversation with Stephen yesterday, I don't think it's
the case that a common layout in partitions/fs is actually reducing
the test load.  From a component standpoint, sure absolutely it is.
One filesystem to test is easier than 3.  However, we don't do
_filesystem_ testing in the context of release testing.  It's implicit
in the other tests.

So if we have 3 products, which deliver 3 different install media,
then we still have 3 different things to test regardless of the
FS/partition scheme chosen by default.  Cloud is delivering cloud
images.  Workstation is looking at a live image as it's default
deliverable, and I believe Server is looking at a more traditional
install approach (with it being the only OS on the machine).  Given
they all have completely different ways of doing the install, having a
common fs and layout doesn't particularly change the fact that they
all still need to be tested.

I do agree on the custom vs. non-custom part, and having the install
options in each media as choice-free as possible will help overall.
Having to do multiple iterations over each product install approach
makes things even harder.  I think that if the defaults happen to be
the same it's a bonus, but not a requirement.

And before anybody yells at me, I fully expect the WGs and people
working on the products will need to significantly pitch in on the QA
front to ensure their product install is viable.  It comes with the
change that's being done.

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux