Calming the BAD JOKE thread

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Mar 30, 2004, Jean Francois Martinez <jfm512 at free.fr> wrote:

> But we expect to be able to install (even  some glitches) and to boot.

Based on what?  Part of the testing is exactly on the installer.  If
you haven't been trying to install rawhide to report early problems
that would make it to the test release otherwise, how would you expect
people to know about them to fix them?

> If we aren't able to do this, we will be frustrated and we will be
> unable to provide any help in hunting bugs.

Well, being unable to install a test release is not the end of the
world.  If you had the previous release installed, you can always keep
on tracking rawhide until the next test release, that's coming soon,
is out.  Meanwhile, be sure to test a rawhide install every now and
then and report problems.

> want Fedora getting a bad name due to bad releases or betas who are
> in pre-pre-alpha stage (see below before you get defensive on this)

Betas?  There aren't betas or alphas or pre-pre-alphas.  Fedora Core
has test releases.

> 3) The boot.iso image is in a state who is completely unacceptable
> even for a beta.  In normal times this would not be a major problem
> since most people would install from CD and would not see it.  But
> since many people have been unable to boot from CD they have stumbled
> upon it.

boot.iso is just a small extract of the boot CD.  If the latter
doesn't work, it's highly unlikely that the former will.  On the good
side, fixing the former will probably fix the latter as well.

> It does not make FC2T2 a joke (ie I withdraw my words about
> it) but as I said above boot.iso is in inacceptable state

Thanks.  Now let's work together to fix it.  That's what test
releases, broken or not, are all about.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}