Hey, folks. We had a somewhat contentious bug come up in the blocker meeting this morning:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614488
the graphical boot menu that should come up when you boot the installer currently isn't. None of our existing Alpha, Beta or Final release criteria deals with this kind of situation.
The simple approach here is to have a criterion which says that the graphical bootloader menu must appear at boot, and make it Alpha. An alternative approach would be two criteria:
Alpha: when booting a traditional installer image, the boot sequence should be such that the system boots into the installer (after a reasonable timeout for any optional user input, if appropriate) without the need for any user input.
Beta: the graphical boot menu must appear as intended.
What does everyone think would be best here? One of the above, or some other option? Thanks!
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, folks. We had a somewhat contentious bug come up in the blocker meeting this morning:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614488
the graphical boot menu that should come up when you boot the installer currently isn't. None of our existing Alpha, Beta or Final release criteria deals with this kind of situation.
The simple approach here is to have a criterion which says that the graphical bootloader menu must appear at boot, and make it Alpha. An alternative approach would be two criteria:
Alpha: when booting a traditional installer image, the boot sequence should be such that the system boots into the installer (after a reasonable timeout for any optional user input, if appropriate) without the need for any user input.
Beta: the graphical boot menu must appear as intended.
What does everyone think would be best here? One of the above, or some other option? Thanks!
Just to add some visual exhibits ... see the attachments to compare rawhide and Fedora 13 boot dialogs.
I was going to suggest the criteria around the timout, but you've already suggested that above. I think that's a nice touch.
Is there a large technical challenge that requires splitting the boot criteria in two? I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not sure if it's an artificial division, or if there are really cases that demand the split. If we can require that the boot media be setup correctly at the Alpha,
Another thought, I recall there was some debate about adding release criteria for the artwork. Would it make sense to rephrase the second point to something more specific to Fedora artwork? [1]
Thanks, James
[1] I thought this was added already, but I'm not seeing it at the moment.
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 14:16 -0400, James Laska wrote:
Alpha: when booting a traditional installer image, the boot sequence should be such that the system boots into the installer (after a reasonable timeout for any optional user input, if appropriate) without the need for any user input.
Beta: the graphical boot menu must appear as intended.
What does everyone think would be best here? One of the above, or some other option? Thanks!
Just to add some visual exhibits ... see the attachments to compare rawhide and Fedora 13 boot dialogs.
I was going to suggest the criteria around the timout, but you've already suggested that above. I think that's a nice touch.
Is there a large technical challenge that requires splitting the boot criteria in two? I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not sure if it's an artificial division, or if there are really cases that demand the split. If we can require that the boot media be setup correctly at the Alpha,
I was just trying to cover the possibilities. For me, the appearance of a graphical menu is really a polish issue and doesn't fit well with Alpha, it seems more suited to Beta or Final. But the practical element is whether the boot-to-the-installer process actually works, no matter what you see in the meantime. For me the loss of the other options on the menu isn't really critical until beta, but the install process should at least start if you just boot and wait at Alpha stage.
It may be too much effort to draw this distinction, though, in which case we may as well go with #1.
Another thought, I recall there was some debate about adding release criteria for the artwork. Would it make sense to rephrase the second point to something more specific to Fedora artwork? [1]
For me that's *definitely* a final release polish issue. I don't think we can really say we want to delay the Alpha or even Beta release simply for an old wallpaper on the bootloader menu, can we?
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 14:16 -0400, James Laska wrote:
Alpha: when booting a traditional installer image, the boot sequence should be such that the system boots into the installer (after a reasonable timeout for any optional user input, if appropriate) without the need for any user input.
Beta: the graphical boot menu must appear as intended.
What does everyone think would be best here? One of the above, or some other option? Thanks!
Just to add some visual exhibits ... see the attachments to compare rawhide and Fedora 13 boot dialogs.
I was going to suggest the criteria around the timout, but you've already suggested that above. I think that's a nice touch.
Is there a large technical challenge that requires splitting the boot criteria in two? I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not sure if it's an artificial division, or if there are really cases that demand the split. If we can require that the boot media be setup correctly at the Alpha,
I was just trying to cover the possibilities. For me, the appearance of a graphical menu is really a polish issue and doesn't fit well with Alpha, it seems more suited to Beta or Final. But the practical element is whether the boot-to-the-installer process actually works, no matter what you see in the meantime. For me the loss of the other options on the menu isn't really critical until beta, but the install process should at least start if you just boot and wait at Alpha stage.
It may be too much effort to draw this distinction, though, in which case we may as well go with #1.
Yeah, definitely #1.
Another thought, I recall there was some debate about adding release criteria for the artwork. Would it make sense to rephrase the second point to something more specific to Fedora artwork? [1]
For me that's *definitely* a final release polish issue. I don't think we can really say we want to delay the Alpha or even Beta release simply for an old wallpaper on the bootloader menu, can we?
No, I wouldn't argue this as a Alpha (or possibly Beta) criteria. I only meant to suggest that it could be combined with something more generic about artwork for the release. Like you point out above, it feels more like a polish issue. Much like many of the artwork issues (not meant to diminish their contribution, only that they are not required for proper function).
Thanks, James
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 14:47 -0400, James Laska wrote:
I was just trying to cover the possibilities. For me, the appearance of a graphical menu is really a polish issue and doesn't fit well with Alpha, it seems more suited to Beta or Final. But the practical element is whether the boot-to-the-installer process actually works, no matter what you see in the meantime. For me the loss of the other options on the menu isn't really critical until beta, but the install process should at least start if you just boot and wait at Alpha stage.
It may be too much effort to draw this distinction, though, in which case we may as well go with #1.
Yeah, definitely #1.
I have gone ahead and added this criterion to the F14 Alpha criteria:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_14_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Alpha_Releas...
Another thought, I recall there was some debate about adding release criteria for the artwork. Would it make sense to rephrase the second point to something more specific to Fedora artwork? [1]
For me that's *definitely* a final release polish issue. I don't think we can really say we want to delay the Alpha or even Beta release simply for an old wallpaper on the bootloader menu, can we?
No, I wouldn't argue this as a Alpha (or possibly Beta) criteria. I only meant to suggest that it could be combined with something more generic about artwork for the release. Like you point out above, it feels more like a polish issue. Much like many of the artwork issues (not meant to diminish their contribution, only that they are not required for proper function).
We should probably start a new thread to discuss what polish criterion / criteria we want to add.
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 14:47 -0400, James Laska wrote:
I was just trying to cover the possibilities. For me, the appearance of a graphical menu is really a polish issue and doesn't fit well with Alpha, it seems more suited to Beta or Final. But the practical element is whether the boot-to-the-installer process actually works, no matter what you see in the meantime. For me the loss of the other options on the menu isn't really critical until beta, but the install process should at least start if you just boot and wait at Alpha stage.
It may be too much effort to draw this distinction, though, in which case we may as well go with #1.
Yeah, definitely #1.
I have gone ahead and added this criterion to the F14 Alpha criteria:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_14_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Alpha_Releas...
Thanks for clarifying, I've added this as one expected result in boot method tests[1].
Cheers, Hurry
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Installer_Boot_Methods
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/16/2010 10:45 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
What does everyone think would be best here? One of the above, or some other option? Thanks!
I feel that this should block Alpha. To put out an alpha that looks like this will cause a significant amount of bug traffic and mailing list traffic and general confusion in the users. It is not something I would consider even Alpha quality.
- -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-
Adam Williamson -
He Rui -
James Laska -
Jesse Keating