On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 12:26 -0400, James Laska wrote: > One thought was ... in the absence of an Alpha, QA can schedule several > test days. However, experience shows that not all test days have the > same starting conditions. During F10 and F11, several test days > experienced 'launch failure'. That is, we either couldn't generate a > usable live image, or the steps required to prepare the test environment > required enough forks in the road that it became a barrier to > participation. Having more visibility and more coordinated planning on upcoming test days can help us focus to get the required bits in good shape for those days, be it anaconda, be it livecd-tools, whatever. These are lower cost then grinding everything to a halt (as far as the freeze is concerned) for a week or more. > > Another investment for QA would be to provide more data on the health of > rawhide. This doesn't directly influence quality, but more a foot in > the door when it comes to measuring quality. > > Without the Alpha, how do we entice the distro to come together? How do > we ensure that we aren't shifting the bugs we find in an Alpha now, to > the Beta? Should we hold the F12 beta to the same/higher/lower > standards that we hold the current Beta? Yes, we should hold Beta to the same or higher standard. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
