Proposed Alpha criteria adjustments
awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Jul 27 00:27:19 UTC 2011
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 14:35 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> > The asymmetry there was intentional and I sort of like it; I think it's
> > a bigger problem if we install to your type of storage then shut it down
> > uncleanly than if we just don't install to it. But on the other hand,
> > you could argue we can capture any really serious cases under the Final
> > 'data corruption' criterion. So, I can see both sides on this.
> To make sure I follow your concerns ... by linking the storage
> partitioning and console-based shutdown, you worry we're exposed to
> other storage scenarios (RAID, iSCSI, FCoE etc...) where shutdown
> wouldn't work and might leave the system in need of sck (or worse)?
> My rationale for making the link between shutdown and partitioning was
> because it seemed odd to accept a RAID-related shutdown bug as an Alpha
> blocker, but at the same time reject anything related to installing
I understand that, but consider: the fact that we don't *require* (for
e.g.) RAID installs to work at Alpha doesn't mean that they *never
work*. In fact, they usually (or at least sometimes) do. I'd suggest
that probably, at Alpha time, *at least* one storage option that's not
required to work, does work. And that means probably _someone_ out there
is using it. Sure, any data you put on an Alpha distribution is data you
don't care about and etc etc, which is why we made the data corruption
criterion Final stage, so I can see both ways on this, just wanted to
explain my rationale.
> Would you feel comfortable if in addition to the proposed Alpha shutdown
> criteria, we also update the existing Beta desktop-shutdown criteria to
> include the "desktop, and console-based, mechanisms for shutting down a
> system ..."?
Mm, I dunno, we don't wanna make it too complicated, I guess.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
More information about the test