Release criteria proposal: downgrade some kickstart delivery methods from Beta to Final

[John Dulaney]

> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:44:52 -0500
> From: kparal at redhat.com
> To: test at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Release criteria proposal: downgrade some kickstart delivery methods from Beta to Final
>
> > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 18:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hey, folks. So, currently the Beta criteria state:
> > >
> > > "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods"
> > >
> > > This is probably over-ambitious for Beta. We have some pretty odd
> > > kickstart delivery methods:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Kickstart_File_Path_Ks_Cfg
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Kickstart_Hd_Device_Path_Ks_Cfg
> > >
> > > that are only really useful in pretty unusual scenarios. In fact
> > > the
> > > first of these is broken in F16 Beta and we decided to go ahead and
> > > release it anyway (on the basis that we agreed this criterion
> > > should be
> > > changed, which is why I'm proposing a change now), and the world
> > > has not
> > > ended.
> > >
> > > I'd propose at least this much change:
> > >
> > > for Beta, the criterion should read
> > >
> > > "The installer must be able to use the HTTP and NFS kickstart
> > > delivery
> > > methods"
> > >
> > > as those are the two that are really useful in most situations, and
> > > we
> > > move
> > >
> > > "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods"
> > >
> > > to be a Final criterion. Thoughts? The Beta criterion is a bit more
> > > 'technology-specific' than I usually like to make the criteria, but
> > > I
> > > don't think we're that likely to discover any exciting new
> > > protocols in
> > > the foreseeable future, so specifying HTTP and NFS is probably
> > > reasonably future-proof.
> >
> > Ping on this one: any further thoughts? Didn't get much response the
> > first time out.
>
> I agree.

I'm also +1 on this.