Hi Evan.

I like the first part, but then it seems that the problem statement goes 
out of scope. Version compatibility doesn't have to do with the failure 
not being handled or logged gracefully.  (Hopefully the latter will be 
fixed as another part of the project.)

Version compatibility has only an indirect connection with insight as to 
where or why the failure occurred (when versioning prints a message that 
things might not work upon detecting a version mismatch), but OK.

If you want to keep the problem statement, grammatical corrections follow:

On 05/19/09 17:28, Evan Layton wrote:
> Problem Statement:
>
>     * Currently installing a client where the booted image doesn't
>       match the OS bits being installed, the installation will fail
... the installation could fail ...
>       in unexpected and undefined ways.
>         * Further the user is given no information on why we failed
Further, the user ... on why the installation failed ...
>           and the failure is not handled or logged gracefully.
...because the failure is not handled or logged gracefully.
>         * Additionally both the user and the installer application
>           have no insight into where or why we failed.
Who is "we" here?  Isn't the installer application the thing that 
failed? Or at least the application should know how the installation 
failed because it was running the installation?

    My $.02,
    Jack
>
> I would like to get any input from Ethan, Karen, Jack, Frank and
> anyone else interested on the problem statement by 5pm PST on
> Wednesday.
>
> I've also added a wiki page for this information and added meeting
> notes as well as other information.
> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/CVERS/
>
> Thanks!
> -evan
>
>
> More notes...
>
> The areas of possible incompatibilities:
> 1) Architecture, SPARC or X86/64 (for image or archive based install).
> 2) OS version the client is booted to
> 3) installer version
> 4) The type of install image we are using. For example Package
>    based, archive(cpio, etc) based or image (replicated or recovery
>    image) based.
> 5) OS version being installed
> 6) manifest and schema versioning to make sure they match. (This is
>    part of Jack's XML parsing work)
>
>


Reply via email to