Partitioning criteria revision proposal

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

On 10/11/2012 06:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 01:15 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2012 12:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>> We agreed at the blocker review meeting this morning that "most
>>>> commonly-used filesystem types" was really pretty vague and
>>>> unsatisfactory. The specific case we were considering was LVM. In the
>>>> end we agreed that, really, at Beta stage, anaconda ought to be capable
>>>> of dealing with any filesystem / device type it offers (the 'device
>>>> types' are LVM, RAID and btrfs). If a type isn't working it needs to be
>>>> either fixed or suppressed (as we did for the last couple of oldui
>>>> releases with btrfs - we suppressed it from the list as it wasn't
>>>> working). The intent here isn't to cover every possible bizarre
>>>> permutation anyone can come up with (the Final criterion does do that),
>>>> but more that just simply creating a partition in a pretty normal,
>>>> everyday way with any of the options offered shouldn't cause the
>>>> installer to fall over and die. Please, anaconda folks, if you think
>>>> this is too optimistic and you think we should exclude specific types or
>>>> limit the criterion to a specific subset of types, yell.
>>>
>>> Am I interpreting this correctly to mean that a beta can go out without
>>> support for software RAID and/or LVM, as long as they are not offered in
>>> the Anaconda interface?  If so, uugh.
>>
>> Well, that's a complex question. =)
>>
>> As far as the release criteria would be concerned, yes. My thinking is
>> that it's ultimately not exactly QA's decision what filesystem / device
>> types anaconda ought to offer, which is sort of what we'd be doing by
>> specifying particular types in the criteria, and it gets a bit unwieldy
>> to specify every type we reckon is important or isn't.
>>
>> So in theory, sure, anaconda could drop RAID out of the interface and
>> the proposed criterion would be satisfied. But that decision could be
>> challenged _on its own merits_ rather than via the blocker process.
>>
>> I do see what you're saying though, like I said, I'm not sure I've got
>> everything right here. It would be good to know what more people think
>> about whether we should get into the business of specifying 'critical'
>> partition / device types in the criteria or not. anaconda folks reading?
>
> To give a specific proposal here, which I find always focuses minds, we
> could simply adjust the relevant line to read:
>
> Creating and, optionally, encrypting partitions of any specified size
> using all offered device and filesystem types. RAID-0, RAID-1, RAID-5
> and LVM must be offered as device types, and ext4 must be offered as a
> filesystem type
>
> Tweak as desired, but you get the idea. That's how we could do it if we
> do go down the road of ignoring my addiction to non-specificity and just
> specifying particular types in the criteria. Of course, we'd have to
> adjust it over time, like when btrfs becomes more commonly used than
> RAID and LVM in the Glorious Future.
>

Please include raid 10.

-- 
Regards,
OldFart