Am Dienstag, den 19.10.2010, 09:44 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating:
On 10/19/2010 04:22 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 19.10.2010, 00:09 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating:
>> On 10/19/2010 12:01 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 18.10.2010, 20:35 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating:
>>>> There is not going to be a TC2. We are moving on to RC.
>>> Is this process documented in the wiki somewhere?
>> is probably the best place, which was linked to from
> The list only memtions the Tc, but nether TC1 and TC2 not the fact that
> TC2 does not include live media.
It mentions TC because there is only one Test Compose that is scheduled.
Any additional test composes would be out of the normal and unplanned
for. It isn't a case that TC2 does not include live, it's a case that
there is no TC2.
Thanks for the explanation. This basically means that my initial
questions still stands: Is this documented somewhere in the wiki?
>>>> It is FAR too
>>>> late to be introducing technology that needs to be tested and planned
>>>> for at this stage in the release cycle.
>>> The only thing that needs testing is the boot menu. The rest is taken
>>> care of by the normal spins/desktop testing we already do and did.
>> That's still something that needs testing, needs a testing plan, needs
>> coordination. Not something that can easily be slapped together in the
>> less than one week since the concept became visible here.
> What is there to test for a boot menu? What would a test plan look like.
> Boot all menu entries and you are done.
Have you attempted doing installs from each booted system?
I only tested my Spins (Xfce and LXDE), but David Nalley reported he had
installed them all successfully. I did not expect another results
because we are dealing with something that was (should have been)
already tested. The only difference is the boot catalog.
What if somebody tries to make a USB device out of that iso?
Honestly I haven't tried, but as long as we don't say it is a supported
use case, we don't have to support it. What if somebody tries that with
our install DVDs? Do we test and guarantee that it works?
The testing might
be easy, but my point is that QA has no test plan for it, nor have they
allocated resources or time to execute the test plan in order to pass or
fail this offering.
Speaking of testing and resources: Where is the test plan for the spins
ans where are the results? AFAICS there are none, at least according to
installation of the desktop live media has been tested.
To try and get time to validate a test plan, no
matter how easy it is, and to get time allocated to produce release
candidates, distribute them, and execute the test plan at this point is
really asking for too much. We're under the gun to get our already
planned for test execution complete on time. Adding more will not help.
I would love to help here, unfortunately processes are poorly
documented, so it's hard to step in.
>>>> I still haven't seen any plan for how to handle
our source obligation.
>>> I cannot give you a plan if nobody outlines the obligations to me.
>> You need to speak to Fedora legal to figure out what your obligations are.
> I have written them but no reply so far.
>>> Why is the DVD different than the other spins?
>> All the other things the project produces are made available on the
>> website in binary form, alongside the source. It is not clear to me if
>> your combined media set will be made available online in any way.
> In my first email I wrote:
>>> Given that [...]
>>> * we have download location for the image on Fedora
>>> * we put a readme on the spin whith the download location of
>>> the SRPMs
> Is there anything unclear about it?
Sorry, I missed that. Fedora Infrastructure approved an additional 8~
gig iso to be hosted and mirrored?
They will definitely not approve another 6 GB if it needs to be
mirrored, but I don't see why it needs to be mirrored. We are not doing
this for the other spins ether.
>> It is
>> not clear to me if a binary aggregate of all the spins can be satisfied
>> by the sources we have online. It is not clear to me what method of
>> GPLv2 source obligations you will be using when distributing these
>> binary offerings.
> This sounds a little vague to me. Can you please outline your concerns a
> little deeper? AFAICS they apply to the other spins too as they also
> have a boot menu.
> What is the difference between shipping 8 single media and one dual
> layer DVD? The only difference is the boot menu.
You are correct that there is little difference between this and others.
It has been an agenda item of mine for quite some time now to revisit
how we do physical media offerings under the name of Fedora. It is of
my opinion that we are not doing them correctly, but I am not a lawyer,
and I haven't had the time to take it up with Fedora Legal as of yet.
Ok, there is little difference, nevertheless you bring this up. Same
with the other concerns:
* You demand test cases although none of the spins has any special
* You demand QA although we are not doing it for other spins
* You ask for mirroring although other spins are not mirrored
In this discussion, you and some board members suddenly seem to set
higher standards for the multi desktop DVD than for any other spin that
was ever approved. This leaves a bitter taste behind: While there may be
valid concerns, most arguments look like lame excuses to me. I have the
feeling that the board wants to anticipate a great feature that would
really make live of the ambassadors easier and be a great benefit to
Fedora. This way of treating the volunteer contributors will seriously
damage our community.