Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)

[Mike Ruckman]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:21:11AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

<snip>

> I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to:
> 
> "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, 
> the installer must be able to install the default package set."
> 
> and add a Beta criterion:
> 
> "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, 
> the default package set must be correct."
> 
> with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended 
> by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever.
> 

+1 to the rewording.

> I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package 
> sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha 
> criterion "No broken packages":
> 
> "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images 
> which cause the package to fail to install."
> 
> network installs using updates media don't really need to block on 
> package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of 
> whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which 
> meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos 
> enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that?

I'd be for blocking on a broken netinst (like your example), but if the
repos are the same used for image creation this shouldn't really be an
issue, right? (Yeah, I know I used the "S" word :p ) AIUI things would
break in other places if this particular issue was to come up. Is my
understanding correct?

-- 
// Mike 
--
Fedora QA
freenode: roshi
http://roshi.fedorapeople.org