On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 11:29 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > 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. Do I see two volunteers to help fix kickstart bugs? :) -- 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
