Release criteria updates: genericizing!

[He Rui]

On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 15:39 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback!  Some follow-up below...
> 
> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 09:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 10:46 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> > > Greetings testers,
> > > 
> > > I've been playing with some ideas on how to allow secondary
> > > architectures to leverage the primary release criteria.  I have some
> > > ideas/challenges that I'll send to the list for feedback later.
> > > However, in preparation for those ideas/concerns, I'd like to propose
> > > several changes to the release criteria.
> > > 
> > > The proposed changes are intended to make the existing criteria slightly
> > > more generic, without losing their meaning.  Additionally, I've made a
> > > few other minor changes and added a few questions.  Please take a few
> > > minutes to review the proposed changes (highlighted in red at the links
> > > below).  If nothing alarming surfaces during review, I'll proceed with
> > > operation genericize [1] early next week.
> > > 
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft_Alpha_criteria_revision
> > 
> > I'm unclear on the addition of the word 'package' to 2: what does this
> > clarify? What is the other type of install if not a 'package install'?
> > Deleting CD, sure.
> 
> Yeah, deleting the CD's for one.  It's technically not needed, but we
> have a lot of users that boot a DVD, and install from the online
> repositories.  I was trying to articulate that this only applies to
> packages from the media.  But perhaps that's redundant after saying
> "media-based install"?
> 
> > On the deletion of the 'primary architectures' mention from 4: we should
> > probably replace this with something in the preamble, similar to what's
> > there for 'release-blocking desktops'.
> 
> I was hoping to avoid too much preamble, since for me, the eye really
> draws to the bullet list, and not the preamble.  The deletion was going
> to be accompanied with my other ideas for secondary architecture
> handling.  But I decided to break that up into two parts, so for now
> I'll back out that change.
> 
> Are we at the point where we need to create a section called
> 'Assumptions', which would include release-blocking desktops and primary
> architectures?
> 
> > On 7: Not sure about this - I think booting from boot.iso and then using
> > the DVD as a package source is explicitly supported, isn't it? Was this
> > criterion meant to ensure that works?
> 
> Good discussion.  I was trying to bring the criteria closer to what we
> actually test (fedora-qa) and maintain (anaconda-devel).  Booting the
> boot.iso with askmethod, then installing from the DVD is a use case that
> we don't explicitly test and I wasn't intended with the original
> criteria, and we'd be hard-pressed to get fixes for.
> 
> I discussed this use case in #anaconda ... while we don't explicitly
> prevent a user from doing this, there is no logical use case to do this.
> They requested rephrasing the criteria to explicitly mention booting,
> and installing from, the DVD.  
> 

Then the default DVD install can cover this criteria or we need to add
the askmethod, repo=[1] and graphically adding DVD repo[2] tests? I
think it's very rare to use the latter options when already installing
from DVD.

In addition, there's no criteria referring to 'preupgrade from order
release test'[3] yet, should it be put into beta 11.[4] or the final
criteria? 



Thanks,
Hurry

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_install_repository_DVD_variation

[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_install_repository_DVD_graphical

[3]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Preupgrade_from_older_release

[4]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft_Beta_criteria_revision

-- 
Contacts

Hurry
FAS Name: Rhe 
Timezone: UTC+8
TEL: 86-010-62608141
IRC nick: rhe #fedora-qa #fedora-zh