On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 15:39 -0400, James Laska wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! Some follow-up below... > > On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 09:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > 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. > > Yeah, deleting the CD's for one. It's technically not needed, but we > have a lot of users that boot a DVD, and install from the online > repositories. I was trying to articulate that this only applies to > packages from the media. But perhaps that's redundant after saying > "media-based install"? > > > 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'. > > I was hoping to avoid too much preamble, since for me, the eye really > draws to the bullet list, and not the preamble. The deletion was going > to be accompanied with my other ideas for secondary architecture > handling. But I decided to break that up into two parts, so for now > I'll back out that change. > > Are we at the point where we need to create a section called > 'Assumptions', which would include release-blocking desktops and primary > architectures? > > > 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? > > Good discussion. I was trying to bring the criteria closer to what we > actually test (fedora-qa) and maintain (anaconda-devel). Booting the > boot.iso with askmethod, then installing from the DVD is a use case that > we don't explicitly test and I wasn't intended with the original > criteria, and we'd be hard-pressed to get fixes for. > > I discussed this use case in #anaconda ... while we don't explicitly > prevent a user from doing this, there is no logical use case to do this. > They requested rephrasing the criteria to explicitly mention booting, > and installing from, the DVD. > Then the default DVD install can cover this criteria or we need to add the askmethod, repo=[1] and graphically adding DVD repo[2] tests? I think it's very rare to use the latter options when already installing from DVD. In addition, there's no criteria referring to 'preupgrade from order release test'[3] yet, should it be put into beta 11.[4] or the final criteria? Thanks, Hurry [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_install_repository_DVD_variation [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_install_repository_DVD_graphical [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Preupgrade_from_older_release [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft_Beta_criteria_revision -- Contacts Hurry FAS Name: Rhe Timezone: UTC+8 TEL: 86-010-62608141 IRC nick: rhe #fedora-qa #fedora-zh -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
