On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 15:41 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > * Into Additional Repositories section, add updates-testing repo item,
> > disabled by default, and only visible in pre-release composes. Mkolman
> from
> > anaconda said they definitely don't want to offer updates-testing in
> public
> > releases, because some people then use it without understanding what it
> is,
> > and they get all the bug reports then. And I can understand that. But
> > perhaps they could be convinced to show it up just for us, during
> > pre-release. That would make enabling updates-testing simple, and it
> would
> > also make the checkbox behavior clear (that it's related to stable
> updates
> > only).
>
> I'm not really a huge fan of this one, it seems like it'd be a moderate
> amount of implementation work for a fairly small gain.
>
It depends whether there are some use cases for performing an installation
with updates-testing enabled. For example testing a fixed package that
previous broke installation/system boot? If we disable updates-testing for
installation by default, there's no *easy* way to re-enable it, outside of
a kickstart or spending a lot of effort by defining an additional repo in
the GUI.
My opinion here is just that "use a kickstart, inst.repo , or add a
repo in the GUI" are not that hard and sufficient to the purpose. I
wouldn't agree that it's "a lot of effort" to add the repo in the GUI,
tbh. Step 1) copy the URL from the /etc/yum.repos.d/ file. Step
2)...there is no step 2...
> > Can you imagine anything else, or would modify some of that above?
>
> An option that's easy but I also don't really like a lot would be to
> just hide the checkbox for pre-releases (assuming we went with b)),
> i.e. don't display it if isFinal is false.
>
> I guess another fairly easy option is just to display some additional
> explanatory text when isFinal is false: a note explaining that the box
> only enables the stable updates repos, which will probably not make any
> difference, and that if the tester wants to enable updates-testing they
> should do it using the additional repos box or whatever.
>
Why is so important that pre-release testers are 100% aware that stable
updates repo is empty? People familiar with our processes should know that
already, if they don't - what's the harm? The wide audience testing Beta
release doesn't care either, they get the same package set regardless of
the checkbox status.
I don't think it's "so important", but I think it's worth a trivial
fix
(adding a text label conditional on isFinal is not a difficult thing to
do).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net