Proposed release criteria revisions
jlaska at redhat.com
Fri Mar 18 12:46:22 UTC 2011
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 14:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 20:35 +0000, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > Should there be an explicit requirement for Final at least, that the image
> > itself have a working mediacheck?
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676551
> > Although an external check is always possible, and necessary to verify that the
> > image isn't evil, most casual users probably don't know how to do it, which
> > could lead to a lot of wasted time with spurious bug reports.
> It's a good proposal, I would support it...anyone else have an opinion?
> We should check with anaconda team too.
Oh, good point, I like this idea. My only caution is if it might be too
coupled with a specific implementation. I could see the criteria being
loosely coupled when worded such as, "the provided media verification
procedures operate as intended". However, having criteria more tightly
coupled with an implementation, such as "The user must be prompted for
media verification whenever booting the installer using ISO media from
an optical drive" seems to define policy that the installer should
always prompt for mediacheck. I like it, just not sure if this is the
right place to require that? Thoughts/ideas?
Side-topic ... perhaps a dumb question ... but does mediacheck still
catch valid errors? I seem to recall times when mediacheck passes, but
the media can still be bad.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110318/3924b23d/attachment.bin
More information about the test