On 12/03/2009 03:27 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 12/03/2009 03:03 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 12/03/2009 02:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:45 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>>> Reading the anaconda list, I see a very large number of changes coming
>>> down the road, all significant and probably as complex as the storage
>>> rewrite. I bet the anaconda developers would appreciate the widest
>>> possible testing as soon as changes hit rawhide.
>>> If rawhide is to be frozen, can a mechanism to test anaconda, at a
>>> minimum, be provided? Testing the rest of rawhide is easy and has been
>>> well documented.
>>> Thanks, from a cheerful anaconda tester who may now be tearful.
>> Well, if you read the posts from Peter Jones, that's actually *not* what
>> they want. They say they want to move to model where they provide images
>> for testing anaconda when they're ready to.
> Then why put updates in rawhide? For the live isos? I know there is a
> way with updages.img files to test, but creating them is beyond me.
> Also, I guess we could use Mr. Keating's pungi method.
> It is too bad that the good old days of easily testing the cool changes
> being made in anaconda are over.
I think this is a severe mischaracterization. I really think that this
change should actually make testing /less/ difficult - in that the thing
you're testing will be something we at least think /should/ work.
Think of this as a plan to make testable images flow pretty often, but to
limit /untestable/ images.
Actually, I was looking forward to trying my hand some python coding and
trying some things. Steep learning curve since my old IBM systems
programming days on 360/370.
BTW, what is/was the rationale for having untestable versions of
anaconda in rawhide?