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
