ServerPreInstallation

Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2008-11-23 14:23:31
Size: 3779
Editor: mx
Comment:
Revision 2 as of 2008-11-25 12:38:18
Size: 2943
Editor: mx
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 13: Line 13:
 * Try the Debian installation system to see if this is better
 * Select and integrate if it this is the right answer (Foundations Team)
 * Ensure that QA can add this to their testing matrix
 * Change the documentation to reflect the new install process
Line 26: Line 21:

The overall look and the usability of the installation process are very important when convincing users to try out Ubuntu. It's often their first experience of the operating system, and is a highly stressed situation. The current server installation is curses based and doesn't look fanstastic when compared to the desktop installation or the installation system from our competitors. We want to make our installation look fantastic as long as we don't damage the underlying power for large deployments. Integrating the current Debian installer might be the right step.

Summary

  • Compare our installation to the current ones by Red Hat and Novell SUSE (Microsoft Windows?)
  • Examine whether our installation meets the common use cases (means specifying them in a specification)
  • Change the installation to meet anything that we are currently missing or over-complicating

Release Note

This section should include a paragraph describing the end-user impact of this change. It is meant to be included in the release notes of the first release in which it is implemented. (Not all of these will actually be included in the release notes, at the release manager's discretion; but writing them is a useful exercise.)

Rationale

We know that the speed and simplicity of the installation process is key to providing a "Just Works" experience. We want to offer the best default configuration we can, and offer the ability to set-up optional pieces (tasks), so we must balance these two areas. We firmly do not want a second stage after the installer has run. We should look at the current installation design and remove any questions we can, add anything that we think is missing and have a firm grasp on our overall status.

Use Cases

Assumptions

Design

You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.

Implementation

This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:

UI Changes

Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this

Code Changes

Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.

Migration

Include:

  • data migration, if any
  • redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
  • how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.

Test/Demo Plan

It's important that we are able to test new features, and demonstrate them to users. Use this section to describe a short plan that anybody can follow that demonstrates the feature is working. This can then be used during testing, and to show off after release.

This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.

Unresolved issues

This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.

BoF agenda and discussion

Use this section to take notes during the BoF; if you keep it in the approved spec, use it for summarising what was discussed and note any options that were rejected.


CategorySpec

ServerPreInstallation (last edited 2009-02-19 16:01:08 by 82-69-40-219)