On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:39:41PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
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.
... which should be a blocker.
I agree with Matt. Kickstart is not only a lowest common denominator it is
a critical functionality for tons of our testing and deployment tools. We
don't want revolutionary change in kickstart and we definitely cannot have
it be broken. Slow, gradual change properly documented is critical for
kickstart.
I'm less concerned about changes in anaconda's UI if I know kickstart will
continue functioning.
-sv
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
