On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 10:39 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 10/25/2012 10:04 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > If you think about it, it's funny that we consider autopart to be "easier", and we require it earlier to be working than custom part, that we consider "harder" (now we even think about moving most custom part criteria to Final). But Alpha/Beta are for hardcore users (more manual part) and Final is for general users (more autopart). Isn't that a bit... weird? I still wonder whether we should dictate which parts of UI work and which parts do not, as long as no user data are unintentionally destroyed. > > We decide a long time ago as in the Alpha criteria was and arguably > should be based on only "default" next next next install from the > installer either text based or graphical ( Default partition layout, > minimal package group selected, english as a language and keyboard > layout on a single disk as in minimal install functionality ) with a > clean functional boot up ( kernel/init system ) to terminal with a > working login for root and a functional network connection for reporters > to be able to update and or install or manually tweak the rest on top of > that . > > Needless to say the Alpha criteria has grown a bit more complex since > that time so there is no wonder that we have a bit of inconsistency in > it... As far as partitioning goes, that's what Alpha criteria cover right now, the Alpha criterion for partitioning is very minimalistic. One thing I've been vaguely wondering about, down these same lines, is whether we focus too much in the criteria on whether things *work*, and not enough on whether they're *testable*. But like Kamil's thoughts this isn't really fully formed yet, just a question I've been probing... -- 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
