Jon Peatfield wrote: > Can I assume that the testing comes in at least 3 flavours: > > people to run through the installation in the easiest/normal way on > hardware which has worked ok with previous betas (to check for > accidental breakage). > > people to pound on it and take unusual paths through the installer > to show up obscure cases not spotted before. > > people to try it on (more) unusual hardware to check that stuff is > detected and works This is accurate, for the first phase of testing (21-24 may), we're interested in all three, for the second phase, the second is not as useful as the problems found are likely to be in edge cases and not things that will impact the release. > Is there a description of the minimum level of checks needed to be of > any real value? Even a straight through install taking the default can be very useful, as it's what many users will do, and if it works it's a good indication that the installer is basically usable. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature