> Now that Fedora 25 is out of the door, I'd like to start a discussion about > the future of officially-supported (meaning rigorously tested) optical media > for future Fedora releases.
The discussion died off, so let me summarize and propose a plan. We haven't received as much feedback as I hoped for. Maybe people don't care enough about optical disks to even respond, or it might be a different reason. But we also didn't receive as much negative feedback as I feared. So hopefully this does not negatively impact too many people. The comments under the Phoronix article [1] weren't too helpful either, a few rants but no-one cared to follow up with some explanation or system specification which would be negatively affected for his/her use case. Some of them, I believe, just read the article title without realizing this only affects Alpha/Beta media or certain flavors of Final media. [1] http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fedora-Post-25-Optical-Future > Idea #1: Do not block on optical media issues for Alpha and Beta releases > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is the less controversial idea, I believe. We received a concern from Matthew, who was worried that we might find out too late if we don't check it for Alpha/Beta. I partly agree, but believe we should solve it with an improved QA processes, instead of bumping the release criteria to apply earlier. He did not object to this, and nobody else did, so I assume everyone agrees :-) If there are no further concerns, I'll prepare a criterion adjustment proposal for this. > > Idea #2: Do not block on optical media issues for Final release for certain > flavors/image types (Server, netinst) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > This is a bolder variant of the previous idea and can be done separately or > combined with it. It makes optical media functionality not guaranteed even > for Final release, but just for certain Fedora flavors or image types for > which it makes sense (not all of them). Which images to cover, that's the > heart of the discussion. If you look into our test matrix again, we > currently block on 6 of them: > * Workstation Live + netinst > * KDE Live > * Server DVD + netinst > * Everything netinst This was received with reasonably positive reception as well. But it's harder to compile a list which images should be covered by criteria and which not. - Workstation Live will be covered, that's clear - we give out these DVDs at events, it's sent out to the developing world - Everything netinst is the most universal and generic netinst, so covering that one means we don't need to cover Workstation netinst and Server netinst. People seem to agree to this. - Nobody argued for KDE Live. We probably don't bulk press KDE Live DVDs. If we cover Workstation Live, it's improbable that only KDE Live would break, but not impossible. If such thing happens, are people OK with releasing Fedora XX KDE Live only bootable over USB? - Server DVD is a mixed bag. Matthew didn't include it in his block-list, Adam did. Neal uses it over IMPI (but netinst would be good enough for him IIUIC, sans some package deps issue which can be solved using a kickstart). I would appreciate more feedback from Server folks. Again, we'll cover netinst so it's improbable DVD would break, but not impossible. Are people OK releasing it only bootable over USB (and PXE)? Thanks. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
