On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 10:46 -0400, James Laska wrote: > Greetings testers, > > I've been playing with some ideas on how to allow secondary > architectures to leverage the primary release criteria. I have some > ideas/challenges that I'll send to the list for feedback later. > However, in preparation for those ideas/concerns, I'd like to propose > several changes to the release criteria. > > The proposed changes are intended to make the existing criteria slightly > more generic, without losing their meaning. Additionally, I've made a > few other minor changes and added a few questions. Please take a few > minutes to review the proposed changes (highlighted in red at the links > below). If nothing alarming surfaces during review, I'll proceed with > operation genericize [1] early next week. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft_Alpha_criteria_revision I'm unclear on the addition of the word 'package' to 2: what does this clarify? What is the other type of install if not a 'package install'? Deleting CD, sure. On the deletion of the 'primary architectures' mention from 4: we should probably replace this with something in the preamble, similar to what's there for 'release-blocking desktops'. On 7: Not sure about this - I think booting from boot.iso and then using the DVD as a package source is explicitly supported, isn't it? Was this criterion meant to ensure that works? 10 seems to kind of fall between two stools, as it's still not very generic but now it looks a bit like we're supporting very obscure storage protocols on primary arches. I may be able to come up with something better here...how about: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using any storage interface which is reasonably prevalent in general use" ? That was kind of the intention of the PATA, SATA, SCSI set for Intel. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft_Beta_criteria_revision Dropping 3: yup, it's not needed any more, good catch. Ditto 7. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft_Final_criteria_revision So for 4 we have the same problem as for Alpha, and it's a bit harder to re-write generically :/ So, we add iSCSI to the list for Intel, and zFCP (whatever that is) for another arch; is there anything in particular about these interfaces that we support? Is it just 'all interfaces for which anaconda actually has code' at this point? 15 and 17: not entirely sure what the question is here. The Alpha criterion specifically limits itself to the media, and the generic-* packages are not included on the media. It is acceptable for packages in the repository but not on the media to conflict. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
