On 11/26/2009 12:59 AM, James Laska wrote:
Over the next week, I plan to organize any feedback and discuss the
highlights during an upcoming QA team meeting. The goal will be to
prioritize the pain points and use as a basis for defining objectives
for Fedora 13.
Thanks for your feedback!
My personal experiences in addition to the impressions from reading all
the end user forums, mailing lists and news sites is that Fedora 12 is a
solid release. I request you to explicitly get feedback from atleast
fedora-list and
http://fedoraforum.org from end users directly. Adam and
James, are you subscribed to fedora-list and keeping track of the
discussions there?
I think, there is room for improvement obviously:
* IMO, RCs needs to advertised loudly. We need all the testing we can
get and more alpha or beta snapshots would help as well, I think.
* PackageKit signed install policy was a major issue and although QA was
not really responsible for it, the team does need to do it all can do to
avoid anything like this in the future . Signing Rawhide packages
automatically would have caught this. Not many users in forum or
fedora-list complained about it however.
* Lot more users are trying Preupgrade and QA needs strong focus on the
upgrade story including test days directed towards it. The small /boot
is a major issue and another common bug (not listed in the wiki but I
think needs to be added) is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538118 which makes the
problem worse. We really need to make sure Anaconda creates a bigger
/boot for Fedora 13, preupgrade is explicitly tested well and has solid
workarounds for the small /boot case.
* KMS is still flaky in some cases. In particular, a few Intel users
seem to be reporting lower resolution by default without nomodeset and
ATI performance seems to have regressed. Although I am no fan of
proprietary drivers, I must note that installing the proprietary Nvidia
driver has become a bit more of a hassle.
Bottom line: Pretty good job, overall
Rahul