The criteria looks good to me, but I agree that it might be a double edged sword to say that *The package manager must never make the system enter an inconsistent or unbootable state* as suggested. An explanatory note is also a good thing to have. However I am not convinced that the wording needs to be as complex as proposed.
What if we said something like:
The package manager must never be the primary cause to damage a previously sane installed system in any way.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:54 PM Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 3:00 PM John Mellor jmellor@rogers.com wrote:
I'm ok with that or something similar, but it does point out the need to fill a large gap in keeping the machine sane when something unexpected happens. Perhaps F36 can expedite btrfs gui and cli tools to roll back to the last known sane state in both the normal and diagnostic images.
You have to talk to the developers about that, not QA ;-)
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure