On Feb 20, 2014 6:14 PM, "Chris Murphy" <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> You might need to provide more details and background in posts like
> this, Chris, considering the context. I don't think the desktop team is
> as familiar with the ins and outs of installer partitioning as the
> anaconda and QA teams. They don't deal with it every day. :)
OK I'm not sure how or what to provide that wouldn't also be obscenely
verbose.
My premise is that the present installer paths (Automatic and Manual) do
not
constitute limiting the user interaction to the minimum. But maybe all
or most WG members consider the installer already meets these requirements?
For comparison, by at least two orders of magnitude, the Windows and OS X
installers are more minimalist. They each offer a handful of installed
outcomes (including dual boot), whereas Anaconda Automatic/guided path
alone offers dozens of outcomes, and the Manual/custom paths offers
hundreds possibly infinite.
QA presently lacks the resources to test all possible installer outcomes.
In fact
it's likely that most outcomes aren't tested, and even if not
certainly a significant amount aren't tested. This directly impacts user
experience because for those untested outcomes they are actually the
tester, possibly for the first time. That's also not minimum contact
especially if they get a crash and have to start over, or the resulting
installation doesn't work. I think it's sane for users to expect everything
presented in a GUI installer is at least somehow minimally tested, yet QA
simply can't make that claim right now.
So should the installer be permitted to enable users to created untested
(actually
untestable in some cases) outcomes? I'd say no, but that's my own
bias. So what's the WG's bias? What do they mean by "the minimum" for
user
interaction with the installer?
Chris Murphy
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Given that the audience for the Workstation is developers, does it make
sense to prioritize minimalism? That doesn't, necessarily, mean keep things
as they are, but I'm not sure you need to coddle them. It makes sense, to
me, to continue offering the two paths but, perhaps, tweaking what they
offer/expose a bit.
So, assuming someone has Mac/windows machines available, their installers
should be used as a guide for user expectations.
To the point regarding combinatorics and qa, the installer needs to be
reliable. If you can't test every scenario (or at least have strong reasons
to think untested variants will work) you shouldn't expose them (if at all
possible).
Best/Liam