Re: Release critiera proposal: reword the EFI criterion and, for F17, move it to Alpha

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 12:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  So while I was discussing an EFI issue with Peter Jones we noticed
> that
>  the current release criterion dealing with EFI installs could be
>  improved. It's a Beta criterion, and it reads:
>  
>  "The installer must boot and run on systems using EFI other than Apple
>  Macs"
>  
>  The wording 'boot and run' is a bit odd, what we really want is to be
>  able to complete an installation, so propose:
>  
>  "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), the installer must boot, run, and
>  be capable of installing a correct bootloader configuration on systems
>  using EFI other than Apple Macs. The installed system must boot
>  successfully via EFI"
>  
>  We'd also like to propose moving the criterion to Alpha for F17: EFI is
>  becoming progressively more important over time and will continue to do
>  so. Peter says over 50% of currently shipping server systems use EFI by
>  default. We think F17 is the appropriate timeframe to make EFI an Alpha
>  requirement. 
Now I think about it, here's an alternative: let's just dump the
EFI-specific criterion and take EFI bugs under the generic criteria. I
don't see why we can't just say that the installer failing to boot on an
EFI system is a violation of "The installer must boot (if appropriate)
and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and
boot.iso install media", for instance. It *is*, after all. Ditto for "In
most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of
the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when
applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot'
utility on the first boot after installation", and any of the "The
installer must be able to complete an installation" clauses...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

Release critiera proposal: reword the EFI criterion and, for F17, move it to Alpha

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 12:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

>  Now I think about it, here's an alternative: let's just dump
> the
>  EFI-specific criterion and take EFI bugs under the generic criteria. I
>  don't see why we can't just say that the installer failing to boot on an
>  EFI system is a violation of "The installer must boot (if appropriate)
>  and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and
>  boot.iso install media", for instance. It *is*, after all. Ditto for "In
>  most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of
>  the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when
>  applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot'
>  utility on the first boot after installation", and any of the "The
>  installer must be able to complete an installation" clauses... 
So, a way to clarify that would be to amend:

"The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"

to read:

"The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those
architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

Release critiera proposal: reword the EFI criterion and, for F17, move it to Alpha

[Jurgen Kramer]

On 17 aug. 2011, at 21:52, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 12:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  
> > Now I think about it, here's an alternative: let's just dump the
> > EFI-specific criterion and take EFI bugs under the generic criteria. I
> > don't see why we can't just say that the installer failing to boot on an
> > EFI system is a violation of "The installer must boot (if appropriate)
> > and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and
> > boot.iso install media", for instance. It *is*, after all. Ditto for "In
> > most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of
> > the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when
> > applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot'
> > utility on the first boot after installation", and any of the "The
> > installer must be able to complete an installation" clauses...
>  
>  So, a way to clarify that would be to amend:
>  
>  "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
>  architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"
>  
>  to read:
>  
>  "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
>  architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those
>  architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media" 
>  This sounds good to me. The previous wording regarding to Mac systems
> made me wonder if they were included at all. 
>

Release critiera proposal: reword the EFI criterion and, for F17, move it to Alpha

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 22:02 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
>  On 17 aug. 2011, at 21:52, Adam Williamson
> <awilliam(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 12:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > 
>  >> Now I think about it, here's an alternative: let's just dump the
>  >> EFI-specific criterion and take EFI bugs under the generic criteria. I
>  >> don't see why we can't just say that the installer failing to boot on
> an
>  >> EFI system is a violation of "The installer must boot (if appropriate)
>  >> and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and
>  >> boot.iso install media", for instance. It *is*, after all. Ditto for
> "In
>  >> most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of
>  >> the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when
>  >> applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot'
>  >> utility on the first boot after installation", and any of the "The
>  >> installer must be able to complete an installation" clauses...
>  > 
>  > So, a way to clarify that would be to amend:
>  > 
>  > "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
>  > architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"
>  > 
>  > to read:
>  > 
>  > "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
>  > architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those
>  > architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"
>  
>  > This sounds good to me. The previous wording regarding to Mac systems made me wonder
> if they were included at all. 
actually, they are intended to be excepted, because the devs consider
Macs' UEFI implementations to be so broken as to not be able to
guarantee support for them.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

Release critiera proposal: reword the EFI criterion and, for F17, move it to Alpha

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 12:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 12:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > So while I was discussing an EFI issue with Peter Jones we noticed that
>  > the current release criterion dealing with EFI installs could be
>  > improved. It's a Beta criterion, and it reads:
>  > 
>  > "The installer must boot and run on systems using EFI other than Apple
>  > Macs"
>  > 
>  > The wording 'boot and run' is a bit odd, what we really want is to be
>  > able to complete an installation, so propose:
>  > 
>  > "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), the installer must boot, run, and
>  > be capable of installing a correct bootloader configuration on systems
>  > using EFI other than Apple Macs. The installed system must boot
>  > successfully via EFI"
>  > 
>  > We'd also like to propose moving the criterion to Alpha for F17: EFI is
>  > becoming progressively more important over time and will continue to do
>  > so. Peter says over 50% of currently shipping server systems use EFI by
>  > default. We think F17 is the appropriate timeframe to make EFI an Alpha
>  > requirement.
>  
>  Now I think about it, here's an alternative: let's just dump the
>  EFI-specific criterion and take EFI bugs under the generic criteria. I
>  don't see why we can't just say that the installer failing to boot on an
>  EFI system is a violation of "The installer must boot (if appropriate)
>  and run on all primary architectures from default live image, DVD, and
>  boot.iso install media", for instance. It *is*, after all. Ditto for "In
>  most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of
>  the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when
>  applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot'
>  utility on the first boot after installation", and any of the "The
>  installer must be able to complete an installation" clauses... 
So people were generally in favour of taking EFI bugs as release
blockers, but no-one really expressed a preference as to which of these
two approaches would be best. I think I prefer the second one, so I'll
go ahead and put that in place unless anyone has real preference for the
first approach, or wants to propose an alternative approach. Again, the
proposal boils down to:

amend Alpha criterion:

"The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"

to read:

"The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those
architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"

if everyone's good with that, I'll go ahead and put it in place soon.
thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

Release critiera proposal: reword the EFI criterion and, for F17, move it to Alpha

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 16:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

>  So people were generally in favour of taking EFI bugs as release
>  blockers, but no-one really expressed a preference as to which of these
>  two approaches would be best. I think I prefer the second one, so I'll
>  go ahead and put that in place unless anyone has real preference for the
>  first approach, or wants to propose an alternative approach. Again, the
>  proposal boils down to:
>  
>  amend Alpha criterion:
>  
>  "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
>  architectures from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"
>  
>  to read:
>  
>  "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary
>  architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those
>  architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media"
>  
>  if everyone's good with that, I'll go ahead and put it in place soon.
>  thanks! 
As there were no objections, I've gone ahead and done this by creating
the F17 Alpha and Beta criteria pages, adjusting the Alpha criterion as
proposed, and dropping the Beta EFI criterion. Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net