poelstra at redhat.com
Wed Dec 2 17:10:43 UTC 2009
On 12/02/2009 08:01 AM, James Laska wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 20:33 -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 20:24 -0600, Todd wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Jesse Keating<jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 16:32 -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
>>>>> I believe I remember you stating this some time during F12 development
>>>>> but I can't remember when. I believe it was stated that if you want to
>>>>> run rawhide and need to do an install, you'll either install F12 and yum
>>>>> update to rawhide from there (maybe after doing a completed update
>>>>> first?) or if in development in middle of a cycle, you install the
>>>>> beta/rc/whatever and update to rawhide from that.
>>>>> (obviously if test images are created that goes to this as well)
>>>>> Does that sound about correct?
>>>> That's right. A small wrinkle is that you might even be able to use the
>>>> F12 installer images, but point to rawhide as your install source and
>>>> then you would install all the rawhide packages directly skipping the
>>>> update step.
>>> How will Anaconda get tested if the version in Rawhide is never used?
>> I think what Jesse (and whomever else) is saying, is when anaconda is
>> ready for testing, something will be done so that it can. Otherwise, it
>> will be getting worked on and they (the anaconda developers) will know
>> what the status is already on their own. I'm sure they know what it's
>> status is most of the time and when they need to find out something or
>> need more eyes, then we will get to try it and keep them informed.
> I don't disagree with the rational for dropping image creation. I
> understand how one could theoretically install rawhide packages using
> previously built install images and a rawhide yum repository.
> QA requires a bit more clarity on the process by which images will be
> requested and built ... and we'll then need to update the schedule to
> reflect these changes. I'm not comfortable hand-waving this process
> until later.
Looking at the original proposal and last meeting notes I didn't see any
discussion about this, but maybe I missed it.... "last known good" images?
I would think we'd want to have at a bare minimum a canonical location
for the "last known good" rawhide installer images. It seems really
strange to me that we would really tell people to go as far back as the
Fedora 12 GA image.
More information about the fedora-test-list