rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 16:55 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:

> If the bar is going to be raised,

Just as a sidebar, I'm not sure you're entirely on track with this
assessment - I haven't quite read the same 'undertone' into the .next
discussions.

>  then my instinct is to be even more aggressive with how the installer
> should only present recommended or at least sane outcomes to users. It
> probably shouldn't ever crash.

I don't think you'll get this past the devs. IIRC, their position is
that it is best to crash with a useful traceback in any case where you
somehow wind up in a situation where the installer is not completely
confident about what's going on, for two reasons:

1) they only want installation to proceed if they are very confident it
will work correctly
2) it helps to fix problems, because they get much / all of the
necessary information from the bug reporting process

They're generally very reluctant to have anaconda try to 'sweep things
under the carpet and just go ahead anyway' when it runs into problems,
for the above two reasons.

>  We probably should have *one* file system option for Guided
> partitioning, which is the recommended layout, and the user gets to
> choose a couple of variations: encryption, and a way to reuse an
> existing /home.

Based on the last discussion on anaconda-devel, I'm not sure we can get
down to one, but I think there is some leeway for cutting it down from
four. This definitely needs to be proposed to the anaconda devs, though.
I would be in favor of at least cutting it down from the current set.

> So really, I'm fairly convinced at this point that what's needed is
> feature chop, it's just a matter of how much which depends on what
> quality level expectations the WGs decide upon.

What's your plan for moving forward with this?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net