FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[Justin Conover]

On 1/22/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>On 1/22/06, gb spam <gbofspam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>We value everything installs, it works for us and jumping through
> >>>hoops (write web apps; managing kickstart files; using kickstart
> >>>during installs - does it still not tell you if it can't load the
> >>>ks file until you get to a point in the install where your options
> >>>haven't been selected?) is "less convenient" than clicking a check
> >>>box during install.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >>So let me get this straight.. nothing other than a single check box
> >>during install is going to satify you?  There is no room to
> >>compromise? You've drawn the line in the sand and you are holding
> >>your breath?  That's unfortunate.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >um ... no.  what's unfortunate is your condescending attitude towards
> >folks who are pointing out that they *like* the concept of an
> >everything install.  that would include folks like *me*, by the way.
> >does that mean you're going to insult me as well?
> >
> >
> >
> Can you explain to me a few different use cases which makes it a good
> argument to be available by default other than selecting package groups,
> kickstart and using yum . Please explain with rationale instead of just
> stating your preference.
>
>
> --
> Rahul
>
> Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
>
> --
>

The problem is, folks don't want to go through each category and select
"everything" they like the simple one click and done option.  Me personally,
I like the "minimum" check box but thats gone too :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20060122/af922ec5/attachment.htm>