> >> So really, I'm fairly convinced at this point that what's needed is > >> feature chop, it's just a matter of how much which depends on what > >> quality level expectations the WGs decide upon. > > > > What's your plan for moving forward with this? > > No plan. But I question whether WG members really understand the state of the > installer: how many outcomes it enables; how many QA resources go into > testing it as a percentage of all testing; and yet despite that, as a > percentage of outcomes, how QA likely isn't testing even a majority of > Manual partitioning outcomes; and the perception of Fedora users expecting > that these outcomes have at least been attempted by QA. I think there's a > disconnect. And I'm happy to be totally wrong about that, but when I look at > other installers, I can't help but think they're successful not because of > what they can do, but what they refuse to do. And yeah, we aren't going to > ever have an installer that only produces 5 or 6 outcomes, it'll probably > always be several dozen at a minimum. But several dozen right now would be > an f'n godsend compared to what we've got. > > So I think the factual information of the installer state of affair, user > perception and WG expectations for the installer need better qualification. Workstation WG is now discussing Technical Specifications - one part of it is installer and they are aware of current installer situation. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification#System_Installer Jaroslav > > Chris Murphy > -- > test mailing list > test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
