> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:44:52 -0500 > From: kparal@xxxxxxxxxx > To: test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Release criteria proposal: downgrade some kickstart delivery methods from Beta to Final > > > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 18:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Hey, folks. So, currently the Beta criteria state: > > > > > > "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" > > > > > > This is probably over-ambitious for Beta. We have some pretty odd > > > kickstart delivery methods: > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Kickstart_File_Path_Ks_Cfg > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Kickstart_Hd_Device_Path_Ks_Cfg > > > > > > that are only really useful in pretty unusual scenarios. In fact > > > the > > > first of these is broken in F16 Beta and we decided to go ahead and > > > release it anyway (on the basis that we agreed this criterion > > > should be > > > changed, which is why I'm proposing a change now), and the world > > > has not > > > ended. > > > > > > I'd propose at least this much change: > > > > > > for Beta, the criterion should read > > > > > > "The installer must be able to use the HTTP and NFS kickstart > > > delivery > > > methods" > > > > > > as those are the two that are really useful in most situations, and > > > we > > > move > > > > > > "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" > > > > > > to be a Final criterion. Thoughts? The Beta criterion is a bit more > > > 'technology-specific' than I usually like to make the criteria, but > > > I > > > don't think we're that likely to discover any exciting new > > > protocols in > > > the foreseeable future, so specifying HTTP and NFS is probably > > > reasonably future-proof. > > > > Ping on this one: any further thoughts? Didn't get much response the > > first time out. > > I agree. I'm also +1 on this. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
