On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 12:21 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:16 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > >> Though the question of QA is a good one. > >> I've not looked at how customized (and therefore different) from Fedora > >> a spin can get to the point where it'd need a separate QA path. > > > > I'm okay (Will will have to speak for himself though) if the QA is done > > as part of the SIG who's working on it. That plus review of the config > > should be pretty good for finding problems. > > Perhaps I'm missing something. In order for it to be considered an > official 'Fedora Spin' it has to only use bits in Fedora. In order for > it to be in Fedora it is covered by Fedora QA right? Anything that > works in Fedora but not in the spin I guess would fall on the SIG to fix > but what scenarios would that occur? Just because the bits are there doesn't mean that the combination of bits boots and works. And that's the focus of the testing -- integration testing as opposed to component testing Jeremy _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
