Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 10:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads:
> 
> "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer 
> images, the installer must be able to install each of the release 
> blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set."
> 
> This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug - you can't 
> do that from the Server DVD, and that's intended - and two problems -
> it's too focused on desktops for the new Product-y world, and the 
> 'graphical' restriction seems arbitrary (TUI should work regarding 
> package sets too). It also is missing something: there's no
> requirement about what the *default* package set should be.
> 
> I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to:
> 
> "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, 
> the installer must be able to install the default package set."
> 
> and add a Beta criterion:
> 
> "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, 
> the default package set must be correct."
> 
> with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set 
> intended by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo 
> or whoever.
> 
> I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package 
> sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by 
> Alpha criterion "No broken packages":
> 
> "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking 
> images which cause the package to fail to install."
> 
> network installs using updates media don't really need to block on 
> package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question 
> of whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug 
> which meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates 
> repos enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that?

Here's a ping on this (as I only got feedback from Mike before - 
anyone else?) and a modification: I'd like to extend the Beta 
criterion to read:

"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, 
the default package set must be correct, and choosing a different 
package set must work."

with a footnote something like:

"'work' means that the package set selection mechanism itself must 
work; when used, the packages that form the chosen set must actually 
be the ones marked for installation. Package issues that render one or 
more selectable package sets un-installable do not constitute a 
violation of this criterion, though they may be violations of other 
criteria."

this is to cover things like 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179362 , which I noticed 
when filing it is a bit of a loophole in the proposed criteria.

Any more thoughts, folks? Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net