2:03 p.m.
On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 14:30 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
My two cents:
If there's a fallback option, and if the user selects it, they
shouldn't end up in an unambiguous state. Right now we're seeing
systems hanging. I'd rather see a crash than a hang where the user
can't get to a shell, and sees no useful information on the screen
that tells them why they're hung up; or even generically that "by now
you should see a login screen and if you don't we've faceplanted
somewhere, sorry".
Maybe split the criterion:
Basic criterion: installation media must have a basic video boot entry
that uses the accepted fallback boot parameter(s), e.g. nomodeset. The
criterion just means the media must have the menu entry, and that it
passes something intentional for this purpose as a boot parameter.
Final criterion: installation media's basic video boot entry should
either work (we get a successful graphical boot), or it should
faceplant in some unambiguous way.
If it's not possible to ensure basic video either works as intended or
faceplants unambiguously; then I suggest dropping any beta or final
criterion. And also I wonder if it's at all useful to include some
kind of heads up description for the basic video boot entry? Like,
"this may not work at all" or "wait 5 minutes for graphical boot,
after 10 minutes assume it failed". Haha - I have no idea. Just
something so they aren't waiting around going WTF? Now what?
So kinda aggregating all the response to this discussion, I propose we
go with a modified version of Chris' proposal.
1. We retain the 'entry must exist' part of the criterion at Basic (but
at that point it does not have to *work* - the idea is to ensure it's
testable so we catch bugs in it at that point)
2. We move the rest of the criterion to Final and tweak it a bit to
specify that it must be at least somewhat capable of reaching the
installer or desktop. We do not adopt Chris' "or faceplant
unambiguously" proposal, people seemed to prefer just requiring it to
work.
So, here's the specific text I propose. At Basic we would change this
requirement:
"The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should
include an entry which causes both installation and the installed
system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as
'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer
or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver."
To read only:
"The boot menu for all release-blocking installer and live images
should include an entry which causes both installation and the
installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such
as 'vesa')."
i.e. remove the second sentence (and change 'supported' to 'release-
blocking' - that is a better form of words that should have been used
all along).
At Final we would add this requirement:
"The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode') on all
release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended
(launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic
driver), and there must be no bugs that clearly prevent the installer
or desktop from being reached in this configuration on all systems or
on wide classes of hardware."
How does that sound to everyone? Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:48 p.m.
New subject: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:04 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
So, here's the specific text I propose. At Basic we would change
this
requirement:
> <DELETIA>
To read only:
"The boot menu for all release-blocking installer and live images
should include an entry which causes both installation and the
installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such
as 'vesa')."
This seems reasonable to me. +1
At Final we would add this requirement:
"The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode') on all
release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended
(launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic
driver), and there must be no bugs that clearly prevent the installer
or desktop from being reached in this configuration on all systems or
on wide classes of hardware."
Am I correct in my interpretation that this failing on a narrow set of
hardware or configurations would NOT be considered a blocker?
--
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
Pronouns: he/him
5:01 p.m.
New subject: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion
On 01/04/2019 20:03, Adam Williamson wrote:
So, here's the specific text I propose. At Basic we would change this
requirement:
"The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should
include an entry which causes both installation and the installed
system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as
'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer
or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver."
To read only:
"The boot menu for all release-blocking installer and live images
should include an entry which causes both installation and the
installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such
as 'vesa')."
i.e. remove the second sentence (and change 'supported' to 'release-
blocking' - that is a better form of words that should have been used
all along).
I'm not familiar with the in-crowd dialect here, but it seems strange
that 'release-blocking' is thought to be much the same as 'supported'.
Isn't the first bad and the second good ?
Perhaps it means 'images distributed before and after formal release' ?
John P
5:17 a.m.
New subject: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:04 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
"The boot menu for all release-blocking installer and live
images
should include an entry which causes both installation and the
installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such
as 'vesa')."
Maybe change "causes" to "attempts", so that it's clear it has to
do
something (e.g. add a kernel cmdline option), but the thing doesn't have to
succeed ("causes" sounds to me like a successful attempt). But perhaps
that's just me not being a native speaker, though.
i.e. remove the second sentence (and change 'supported' to 'release-
blocking' - that is a better form of words that should have been used
all along).
At Final we would add this requirement:
"The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode') on all
release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended
(launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic
driver), and there must be no bugs that clearly prevent the installer
or desktop from being reached in this configuration on all systems or
on wide classes of hardware."
Here I'd probably remove "attempting" in favor of a stricter "using a
generic driver". But even your version sounds ok.
1843
days inactive
1844
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Adam Williamson -
Ben Cotton -
John Pilkington -
Kamil Paral