On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 12:47 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > After a discussion at the QA meeting [1], there are a few proposals: > > 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install all > release-blocking desktops for each supported installation method (DVD, > live, netinst, PXE, ...)' > > To clarify that we don't require to be able to install all of them at > the same time: > 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install any > release-blocking desktops for each supported installation method (DVD, > live, netinst, PXE, ...)' > or > 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install each of the > release blocking desktops for each supported installation method (DVD, > live, netinst, PXE, ...)' > or > 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install any single > release-blocking desktop package set for each supported installation > method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)' > > We also agreed that minimal installation should be included in that > criterion, but we haven't agreed on the wording. Let's propose > something like this as the final version: > > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, for each supported > installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)' > > Comments please. I'm fine with that except I'd just drop the "(DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)". We know what installation methods are, and different ones are supported at different release phases, and the requirements may change over time; seems safer not to include it, to me. Oh, also, I'd change 'for' to 'with', grammatically better. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
