On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:20:12 -0400 Máirín Duffy <duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here's some issues that have been raised at recent Board meetings > that I believe still require some follow-up. What do you think? > > 1 - Jon suggested that FESCO should look at setting Anaconda's freeze > date earlier in the cycle. I think someone needs to bring this up with > FESCO. Yeah, I don't think this will help much unless all the critical path is frozen then or something. ...snip... > 3 - Jared noted he would like to see FESCO > 1) Making things more clear as to what constitutes a features being > “100%” ready or “90%” ready; it’s not always clear what that means. > 2) The other thing I would suggest (not really relevant to this > discussion) is to make it clear which types of things should go > through the “features” process, and which types of things can just be > added as package updates (or new packages).” > This needs to be brought up with FESCO. Changes to the Features policy page welcome: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy It's hard to have some idea of what 100% means in some cases. Is it when all the changes are ready to be tested? When they have no more bugs filed against them? ...snip... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
