Re: Testing Fedora - small (?) suggestion.

[Gilboa Davara <gilboad gmail com>]

On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:47 -0800, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 16:55 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > A. In my experience, 1 out of 2 rawhide installs break due to missing
> > dependencies - and spending four hours (and ~1+GB of bandwidth) just to
> > watch Anaconda choke on missing pygtk package is very frustrating.
> 
> If that is a frequent problem for you, I highly recommend mirroring
> whatever you are interested in locally.
> 
> David
> 
> 

I'm not passing judgment, I understand that what I'm proposing means
adding additional workload to RH/FC personal but your answer raising a
philosophical question, does Fedora have a vest interest in -helping-
people test Fedora test/beta/rawhide/etc. (By lowering the bar)
If Fedora doesn't want/need additional testers, then a "mirror the files
locally" solution is sufficient.
if Fedora -does- want attract more testers (and in the long run, users),
then Fedora should consider spinning rawhide ISO every time the rawhide
build reaches minimal level of integrity (Read: no missing packages)

More-ever, I re-raise my suggestion to use normal software terms (Alpha,
beta, RC) instead of using the enigmatic "test release"

- Gilboa