On 12/07/2016 11:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 06/12/2016 18:11, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 15:00 +0000, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> W dniu 06.12.2016 o 14:43, Kamil Paral pisze:
>>> All of that is, of course, motivated by trying to spend QA time more
>>> effectively. You can see the current coverage e.g. in this table ,
>>> overall we burn 6 DVDs and perform 12 optical installation (BIOS +
>>> UEFI) for every release candidate published. We allow non-complete
>>> (yet still substantial) coverage for Alpha and Beta, but 100%
>>> coverage for Final for each candidate compose. That is quite time
>>> consuming, both burning and installation from optical media take a
>>> long time, it requires bare metal testing, and we can't use the
>>> machines for anything else during that time.
>> Why not boot VM with virtual optical drive? You can choose BIOS/UEFI,
>> 32/64bit and do not require bare metal hardware for it.
> It's not a sufficient test. We have had real bugs in the past where a
> VM would boot from an ISO image, but real systems would not boot from
> the same ISO image burned to a real optical disc.
> Virtual machines are great for convenience, but they are not real
> hardware and we cannot in good conscience release our product without
> testing it on real machines with real media.
It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO
images are used a lot for VMs, but not for bare metal.
Well, your view - I have been using netinst-ISOs only, in recently years ;)