On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 17:01 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 2:30 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 6:44 AM Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > If a utility for creating user accounts and other configuration
> configured to launch, it must be visible within 10 seconds of the first
> boot reaching the launch point.
> > I'm not exactly clear on what "the launch point" is, i.e. when I
> start counting.
> Glibly, it's 10 seconds before the point where you go "huh, this
> should have launched by now." :-)
Well then, can we have a phrasing which will not make people ask what the
"launch point" is? If we can't define it, don't put it there, because
will only confuse readers.
One option was proposed by Kalev - e.g. "it must start reasonably fast and
not wait for an unexpected/undesired timeout".
Or if we want to have some exact numbers, what about "it must not add more
than 10 seconds to a regular system boot speed". Of course with the slight
problem that you don't know what a regular system boot speed is, if this is
your first installed system and you're looking at the first system boot.
But for a regular tester this shouldn't be a problem, and if you really
want, you can always measure and compare it with a second+ boot.
Yeah, I would be in favour of making the language as vague as we want
the evaluation to be. If it specifies an exact time, we should be able
to measure it with a stopwatch. If we can't, let's just say "within a
reasonable time" or something vague like that.
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha