>> So really, I'm fairly convinced at this point that
what's needed is
>> feature chop, it's just a matter of how much which depends on what
>> quality level expectations the WGs decide upon.
>
> What's your plan for moving forward with this?
No plan. But I question whether WG members really understand the state of the
installer: how many outcomes it enables; how many QA resources go into
testing it as a percentage of all testing; and yet despite that, as a
percentage of outcomes, how QA likely isn't testing even a majority of
Manual partitioning outcomes; and the perception of Fedora users expecting
that these outcomes have at least been attempted by QA. I think there's a
disconnect. And I'm happy to be totally wrong about that, but when I look at
other installers, I can't help but think they're successful not because of
what they can do, but what they refuse to do. And yeah, we aren't going to
ever have an installer that only produces 5 or 6 outcomes, it'll probably
always be several dozen at a minimum. But several dozen right now would be
an f'n godsend compared to what we've got.
So I think the factual information of the installer state of affair, user
perception and WG expectations for the installer need better qualification.
Workstation WG is now discussing Technical Specifications - one part of it
is installer and they are aware of current installer situation.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification#System...
Jaroslav
Chris Murphy
--
test mailing list
test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test