On 12/03/2009 03:27 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 12/03/2009 03:03 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 12/03/2009 02:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:45 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Reading the anaconda list, I see a very large number of changes coming
down the road, all significant and probably as complex as the storage
rewrite. I bet the anaconda developers would appreciate the widest
possible testing as soon as changes hit rawhide.
If rawhide is to be frozen, can a mechanism to test anaconda, at a
minimum, be provided? Testing the rest of rawhide is easy and has been
well documented.
Thanks, from a cheerful anaconda tester who may now be tearful.
Well, if you read the posts from Peter Jones, that's actually *not* what
they want. They say they want to move to model where they provide images
for testing anaconda when they're ready to.
Then why put updates in rawhide? For the live isos? I know there is a
way with updages.img files to test, but creating them is beyond me.
Also, I guess we could use Mr. Keating's pungi method.
It is too bad that the good old days of easily testing the cool changes
being made in anaconda are over.
I think this is a severe mischaracterization. I really think that this
change should actually make testing /less/ difficult - in that the thing
you're testing will be something we at least think /should/ work.
Think of this as a plan to make testable images flow pretty often, but to
limit /untestable/ images.
Actually, I was looking forward to trying my hand some python coding and
trying some things. Steep learning curve since my old IBM systems
programming days on 360/370.
BTW, what is/was the rationale for having untestable versions of
anaconda in rawhide?
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
