On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 22:58 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 22:55:21 +0200, > > drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> This would make sense for non cloud images as well. Is there any > >> reason why we have to restrict that to the cloud? > > > > > > QA resource limits. > > The gold image remains in place ... so we have it as a fallback. It's still an extremely bad experience to find that Fedora provides an 'official!' updated release image, try and use it, and find it's broken. Even if you can 'fall back' to the original image, it doesn't give you a great impression of Fedora. (Neither, it's true, does finding the initial image doesn't work for you and there isn't an updated one, but I think we do a reasonable job of avoiding that happening too much, and we do have the updates.img mechanism for more targeted handling of such cases). It's also not just QA resources, it's support resources. Now anyone doing Fedora support has a new question to ask anyone who has an install problem: "are you using the original release or one of the new ones?", and the corresponding more complex tree of possible bugs to consider. There's a significant value in knowing, when someone says "I'm trying to install Fedora 20", what exactly it *is* they're trying to install. We already have to consider whether they're doing live or non-live and what arch they're on, in some cases, but adding a whole extra multiplying factor to that wouldn't do anyone any favours. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
