On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 15:54 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > What standard should that be? Is installable by the majority of people who try it. Is capable of being upgraded. Is useful for meaningful testing of the proposed features. Is released in a timely manner without (too much) delay. Is "well received". > > Are there some metrics we could use to measure against that standard? Some are measurable, some aren't. We've been making judgment calls on "success/failure" of test releases since long before Fedora existed. We continue to make those judgment calls based on reception and perception. > There must be some factors we can identify that constitute a > "successful" Alpha vs. Beta (or Beta vs. Preview, or...). For > instance, you could say a successful test release results in filing of > bugs. When it comes to those bugs, what would interest us to know > about their distribution between one test phase and the next, or from > test release to GA? That's really tough to measure. Finding bugs in a alpha or beta is a good and bad thing. Good that they were found, bad that they existed or weren't found in rawhide earlier. Definitely bad at GA but then again Fedora is a bleeding edge distro where things are tested out in a wide fashion, so finding bugs in a Fedora GA release is actually a good thing for upstreams and later downstreams. -- 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
