On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 3:21 PM Sumantro Mukherjee
wrote:
> *modular* should be gone completely now, so drop mention of it?
>>
>
> In that case Kevin, I will also have to update a few more places. Given
> Adamw and Kamil agree :)
>
I think it's fine to drop modular mentions in all places (there m
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 7:09 AM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 7:36 PM Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
>>
>> Proposed Beta Criteria:
>>
>> Release identification
>> A fedora-release package containing the correct names and information and a
>> fedora-repos package containing the correct
On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 7:36 PM Sumantro Mukherjee
wrote:
> Proposed Beta Criteria:
>
> Release identification
> A fedora-release package containing the correct names and information and
> a fedora-repos package containing the correct repository configuration for
> a Beta Fedora release must be pr
On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 11:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 11:05:46PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > A few moons ago, I volunteered to write a Beta Release Criteria. The idea
> > is to set a "criteria"
> > to have Beta images with Updates Testing enabled
On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 11:05:46PM +0530, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> A few moons ago, I volunteered to write a Beta Release Criteria. The idea
> is to set a "criteria"
> to have Beta images with Updates Testing enabled by default. Note, we *do*
> this and have been doing this for s
Yes sounds good to me!
Derek Enz
On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 10:40 AM pmkellly wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> Have a Great Day!
>
> Pat (tablepc)
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 1:36 PM Sumantro Mukherjee
> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> A few moons ago, I volunteered to write a Beta Release Criteria.
Looks good to me.
Have a Great Day!
Pat (tablepc)
On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 1:36 PM Sumantro Mukherjee
wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> A few moons ago, I volunteered to write a Beta Release Criteria. The idea
> is to set a "criteria"
> to have Beta images with Updates Testing enabled by default. Note,
On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 1:36 PM Sumantro Mukherjee
wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> A few moons ago, I volunteered to write a Beta Release Criteria. The idea
> is to set a "criteria"
> to have Beta images with Updates Testing enabled by default. Note, we *do*
> this and have been doing this for some time a
Hey folks,
A few moons ago, I volunteered to write a Beta Release Criteria. The idea
is to set a "criteria"
to have Beta images with Updates Testing enabled by default. Note, we *do*
this and have been doing this for some time and nothing has broken badly
due to keeping UT repos enabled.
This IMO
> > > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release
> > > blocking
> > > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, with each supported
> > > installation method'
> >
> > The discussion died off, this is the latest proposa
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:46 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Thanks. Current version:
> >
> > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, with each supported
> > installation method'
&
> Thanks. Current version:
>
> 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> desktops, as well as the minimal package set, with each supported
> installation method'
The discussion died off, this is the latest proposal. If there are no more
propo
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
Often? Citation appears to be needed.
Quick search pulls:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674771
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742618
and for virtualization
https://bugzilla.
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
> On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 22:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
> > > > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
> > >
> > > This *is* a
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 04:25 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> > > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, for each supported
> > > installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ..
On 18/09/12 03:38, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If the user can't make a choice, they should be using a live image, IMO;
the entire point of the DVD install has always been that it provided
a choice of things for the user to install.
For the end user, those that know, will know what to do.
Those who
On 09/18/2012 02:38 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If the user can't make a choice, they should be using a live image, IMO;
the entire point of the DVD install has always been that it provided
a choice of things for the user to install. Instead of the prior DVD,
which offered a variety of co-dependen
On 09/18/2012 06:01 AM, drago01 wrote:
Stop trolling please.
I should rather say that you should stop trolling
JBG
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> Sure but what's wrong with providing a default choice? It does not
>> conflict with the goal of providing a choice.
>> The user is still free to uncheck the checkbox if he really knows
>> what
>> he is doing.
>
> I agree. There would be no do
> > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, for each supported
> > installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
> >
> > Comments please.
>
> I'm fine with
> Sure but what's wrong with providing a default choice? It does not
> conflict with the goal of providing a choice.
> The user is still free to uncheck the checkbox if he really knows
> what
> he is doing.
I agree. There would be no downside to having GNOME Desktop selected by
default, just a fe
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
>> > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
>>
>> This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
>> user
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:32 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> On 09/17/2012 10:28 PM, drago01 wrote:
>
> This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
> user to change them if he wants.
>
>
> There is no point in having defaults now that GnomeOS is coming to be.
>
> Fin
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 22:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
> > > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
> >
> > This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
> > u
drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
> > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
>
> This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
> user to change them if he wants. But we should not force the user to
> make choic
On 09/17/2012 10:28 PM, drago01 wrote:
This*is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
user to change them if he wants.
There is no point in having defaults now that GnomeOS is coming to be.
Finally the distribution can be free from the shackles of the Gnome
project and
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Petr Schindler wrote:
> On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 09:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
>
'
> or
> 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install each of the
> release blocking desktops for each supported installation method (DVD,
> live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
> or
> 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install any single
> release-
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:47:11 -0400,
Kamil Paral wrote:
After a discussion at the QA meeting [1], there are a few proposals:
'The installer must be able to (successfully) install any release-blocking
desktops for each supported installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
or
In t
or each supported installation method (DVD, live, netinst,
PXE, ...)'
or
'The installer must be able to (successfully) install any single
release-blocking desktop package set for each supported installation method
(DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
We also agreed that minimal inst
'
I think that's better, if we assume the new behaviour in anaconda is
actually intended.
There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug). User
has to choose something, so we can use the Kamil's version. It seems to
me reasonable to require installat
e new behaviour in anaconda is
actually intended.
There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
User
has to choose something, so we can use the Kamil's version. It seems
to
me reasonable to require installation of release blocking desktops in
Alpha phase
On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 09:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
> >> propose
> >> to amend the alpha criterion:
> >>
> >
On 09/08/2012 03:45 AM, David Timms wrote:
So does that mean: "if you don't choose something, then you can't begin
the install process" ?
Yes the has to select few things before he can proceed with install.
Like what he is going to install, to which hd he's going to install to etc.
JBG
--
tes
On 07/09/12 03:47, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> There *are no more groups that are installed by default*. Yes, the groups
> exist, and are used in the installer to help define things that can be
> installed, but none of them are selected by default any more in an
> interactive installation. In the inte
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> On 09/06/2012 01:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> >>On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >>>Johann, I don't really underst
On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote:
Hi,
Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
propose
to amend the alpha criterion:
'The installer must be able to complete package installation with
the
default package set for each supported installation method'
On 09/06/2012 01:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package set' no
longer exists in Fedora 18.
Unless yum &quo
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package set'
> >no longer exists in Fedora 18.
> >
>
> Unless yum "
On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package set' no
longer exists in Fedora 18.
Unless yum "groups" have been removed in F18 I dont see how the term
"default package set" can no longer
> > To be as broad as possible is nice, but for now, there is nothing
> > like
> > 'default package set', you have to choose some, so the amending of
> > this
> > criterion is necessary.
>
> No it's not.
Johann, I don't really understa
p for testing.
To be as broad as possible is nice, but for now, there is nothing like
'default package set', you have to choose some, so the amending of this
criterion is necessary.
No it's not.
We do not tailor criteria's to a *specific* installer or installer
behaviour Ana
On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 08:45 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 07:21 AM, Petr Schindler wrote:
> > Please, let me know if you have some suggestions or objections.
>
> Please keep it
>
> 'The installer must be able to complete package install
On 09/06/2012 07:21 AM, Petr Schindler wrote:
Please, let me know if you have some suggestions or objections.
Please keep it
'The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
default package set for each supported installation method'
We are try to be as broad a
> Hi,
>
> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
> propose
> to amend the alpha criterion:
>
> 'The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
> default package set for each supported installation method'
>
>
Hi,
Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I propose
to amend the alpha criterion:
'The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
default package set for each supported installation method'
to:
'The installer must be able to inst
46 matches
Mail list logo
