On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:05:12 -0500 James Laska <jlaska redhat com> wrote: > That might be a bit aggressive ... but no better way to tell than > trying it. A big outstanding piece is to define what tier#1 includes. > > How do folks feel about ... > > Tier#1 > * Install Source / URL > * Install Source / NFS > * Install Source / NFS ISO > * Install Source / DVD > * Package Sets / Default Package Install > * Package Sets / Minimal Package Install > * Partitioning / ext3 on native device > * Partitioning / rootfs on LVM device > * Partitioning / rootfs on RAID1 (not sure about this one) > * User Interface / Graphical Installation > * User Interface / Text-mode Installation > * User Interface / VNC Installation > > The intent is that the tier#1 test results provide a 10,000 ft view > of how usable a given tree is. From there we might dive deeper > involving specific hardware setups and complex environments. Here is my take. Installer doesn't really get as much of a benefit of pre-releases as other software does. For that reason, installer should be pretty solid for Alpha, even more solid for Beta. If things aren't found at Alpha and fixed for Beta we don't really get a significant testing of the fix before final and that's a bit hard to consume. So I would concentrate pretty hard on the installer cases for alpha and less about the content being installed. Also, testing the new installer features would be good, like resizing, encryption, url method, etc... -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Description: PGP signature