On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Sandy Pond wrote:
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 08:39 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
one final point. traditionally, the whole testing cycle suggests that, as one gets closer and closer to the official release, beta releases are theoretically supposed to get more and more reliable. put another way, it's a bit unnerving to suddenly discover that something that worked just fine in test1 is broken in test2, *especially* something as critical and fundamental as installation.
Well I think the release announcement say it all. There are several new things that weren't in FC2T1. And I don't want them to freeze the release to soon. If they do they'll be getting even more static about not updating packages.
without trying to beat this to death, there is one thing about this that concerns me. it's already been pointed out that there will likely be no respin, since there is a workaround -- just boot off of the first CD from FC2-t1, and switch to the FC2-t2 CDs after that.
fair enough, but what this means is that people who do that are not really testing FC2-t2, are they? technically, they're testing the first install part of FC2-t1, followed by FC2-t2 after that. does this really constitute a technically acceptable beta test, in the strict definition of the word?
more to the point, if there is no respin, there will be *no* testing of this part of the install process until FC2-t3, which seems to be leaving it awfully late.
think about it -- for all of the other software that is found to have bugs, a fixed version would most likely be dumped into rawhide, at which point, testers can update, test and say, "ok, that fixed it."
but based on what i've read, this is not going to happen for the installation code -- there will be no *official* testing of a fix until FC2-t3. am in reading that correctly?
rday