On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 12:13 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:54:45AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > Having depended on kickstart for years, I'm of the very strong belief > > > that while it's okay to have a subset for alpha and beta blockers, > > > *all* documented commands should work for final unless they were > > > marked as deprecated and gave warnings in a previous release. > > > (Preferably two releases, since jumping one release is expected with our > > > lifecycle.) > > I would prefer this as well, I'm just afraid it's not realistic. We now > > have months of delay and still dozens of accepted and proposed final > > blockers. If we demand something like that, we might not be able to > > release at all. > > I think that may be the case _now_ with our current Anaconda situation, but > the more I think about it, the more strongly I feel about making this the > approach for future releases. When there's _not_ a big Anaconda rewrite, > kickstart commands shouldn't change drastically without planning. So, I > don't think it's unreasonable in the real world. The commands themselves shouldn't change, but it's certainly possible - and frequently happens - for something to change in anaconda or some layer below anaconda which happens to have the effect of breaking a kickstart directive. -- 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
