On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 15:41 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > > * Into Additional Repositories section, add updates-testing repo item, > > > disabled by default, and only visible in pre-release composes. Mkolman > > from > > > anaconda said they definitely don't want to offer updates-testing in > > public > > > releases, because some people then use it without understanding what it > > is, > > > and they get all the bug reports then. And I can understand that. But > > > perhaps they could be convinced to show it up just for us, during > > > pre-release. That would make enabling updates-testing simple, and it > > would > > > also make the checkbox behavior clear (that it's related to stable > > updates > > > only). > > > > I'm not really a huge fan of this one, it seems like it'd be a moderate > > amount of implementation work for a fairly small gain. > > > > It depends whether there are some use cases for performing an installation > with updates-testing enabled. For example testing a fixed package that > previous broke installation/system boot? If we disable updates-testing for > installation by default, there's no *easy* way to re-enable it, outside of > a kickstart or spending a lot of effort by defining an additional repo in > the GUI. My opinion here is just that "use a kickstart, inst.repo , or add a repo in the GUI" are not that hard and sufficient to the purpose. I wouldn't agree that it's "a lot of effort" to add the repo in the GUI, tbh. Step 1) copy the URL from the /etc/yum.repos.d/ file. Step 2)...there is no step 2... > > > > Can you imagine anything else, or would modify some of that above? > > > > An option that's easy but I also don't really like a lot would be to > > just hide the checkbox for pre-releases (assuming we went with b)), > > i.e. don't display it if isFinal is false. > > > > I guess another fairly easy option is just to display some additional > > explanatory text when isFinal is false: a note explaining that the box > > only enables the stable updates repos, which will probably not make any > > difference, and that if the tester wants to enable updates-testing they > > should do it using the additional repos box or whatever. > > > > Why is so important that pre-release testers are 100% aware that stable > updates repo is empty? People familiar with our processes should know that > already, if they don't - what's the harm? The wide audience testing Beta > release doesn't care either, they get the same package set regardless of > the checkbox status. I don't think it's "so important", but I think it's worth a trivial fix (adding a text label conditional on isFinal is not a difficult thing to do). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
