On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 7:55 AM Kamil Paral <kparal@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> We currently have the following Beta criterion:
> "The release-blocking images must meet current size requirements." [1]
>
> The latest "Workstation image is oversized" bug [2] showed that we don't consider this requirement to be that critical. People mostly agreed that having a slightly oversized image at Beta is no big deal. And there's much truth to it. The limits were critical when we used optical media, but with flash drives, there is always an option to use a larger one.
>
> Considering this, I believe it makes sense to move the current criterion from Beta to Final.
>
> There are other options to handle this, like giving the image size e.g. 10% headroom during Beta. We can do this, but the more I think about it, the less value I see in it. If the image was 11% over size, would it really matter? I think we actually don't care image image size restrictions before Final release at all. For Final release, sure, some groups want to fit X GB flash drives, and some groups want to fit onto a DVD disc. But for Beta we can always test it just fine, regardless the size (and no images are release blocking for optical media for Beta).
>
> Thoughts?


Maybe the oversize tolerance for beta is 50%? I think it may at this
point be more about significantly impacting download speed than media
availability. At least in the U.S., bandwidth is highly variable [1]
with a large number of people having less than 10Mbps download rates.
I'm sure there's an oversize percent between 10% and 200% where most
of us would generally agree, umm yeah we should block beta and make
the image smaller.

I don't think it's realistic that the image size would increase by 100% or more by accident. That's why I'd have no such limit for Beta. I'd rather have the criteria simpler and then be surprised once in 10 years and deal with it, then have complex criteria and be covered against a very unlikely situation.