On Monday, April 11, 2011 02:40:33 PM James Laska wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 13:54 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2011 01:19:05 PM Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 13:08 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 11, 2011 11:11:21 AM Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:43:00 -0700,
> > > >
> > > > Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > Proposal: Alpha criteria stating:
> > > > >
> > > > > The network installation image, DVD image, and live images for
> > > > > supported desktops[1] must meet current size requirements[2]
> > > >
> > > > I'm flexible on the exact milestone where we start enforcing
this,
> > > > but the proposal looks good.
> > >
> > > I would say that it be a Beta Criteria. I think at alpha if they are
> > > too big oh well. but beta should be much close to GA so should be
> > > within the size limits. the srpms dvd is 5.3G for Alpha, it was 4.9G
> > > in F-14 and 4.2G in F-13. and i honestly think that the source dvd
> > > should be excempt from the size restrictions. since you can not use
> > > it to install a system.
> >
> > it's meant to be - note 'dvd image', singular. I didn't intend
to
> > include the sources DVD. do we even generate it for alpha/beta?
>
> We do generate it for alpha and beta,
In the past, source ISO's have been generated, but only after QA signed
off on a milestone/release. I don't recall seeing them go through any
testing or criteria asserts. Do we want to change this and provide
source ISO's alongside current ISO drops? Or would another mechanism
make more sense?
Thanks,
James
from my perspective id rather not make them and point people at the repos.
I dont think there is much qa we can do. maybe making sure that all rpms in
the tree have their matching srpm. i only brought it up because its bigger
than the 4gb mentioned
Dennis