FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[gb spam]

On 1/23/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> >>>Let's see *your* cost/benefit analysis.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Not to anyone who rather would name call rather indulge in good
> >>discussions. This is not constructive.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I haven't resorted to that, could I see your cost/benefit analysis please?
> >
> >
> When users ask for features the rationale is supplied by them. However I
> have already presented by ideas
>
> *  Everything installation installs every package including all the
> language package that is definitely not going to be useful for anyone in
> the same time. There is obsoletely no requirement to install all the
> language packages except the l10N QA team which is a corner case
> *  Everything installation is not really everything since it doesnt
> support additional repos like Fedora Extras yet during installation
> *  It adds increase burden of manageability (just look at GFS kernel
> module issues in FC4 as a prominent example of how many users ran into a
> unnecessary issue even though they werent using  GFS or werent aware of
> it just because they did a everything installation)
> * The local and remote vulnerability potential increases due to the
> amount of updates that that user has to install
> * For dialup users keep their system updated can be even more harder due
> to unnecessary packages
> * Performance of the system can go down to unnecessary services and
> session programs
>
> Better package management has resulted in much more flexibility post
> installation to install software on demand. Not enough good use cases in
> support for a everything installation has been presented. So if you want
> to lobby for a particular feature kindly present additional reasons why
> it is being required for end users who wouldnt be able to use kickstart,
> select particular groups during installation,  pirut or put post
> installation. When Fedora Core reduces in size, everything installation
> might be more of a feasible option. Just that some users want it is not
> a good reason to implement any feature without understanding the cost
> involved in long term maintenance and support.

I'm sorry, my question was "Can I see your cost/benefit analysis please?"