On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 15:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. > > John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final > > content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA > > (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating), > > anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team > > (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an > > earlier stage). > > So once again things get decided by a small group of people in an in-person > meeting and whoever didn't happen to be at the right place at the right time > only gets to know the final decision after the fact? :-( Nope. This has been discussed for several weeks now. John Poelstra posted the initial draft to test-list on November 20th, and asked for feedback: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg00926.html He posted a further request for feedback on December 2nd, with an explicit explanation that we would be gathering to finish working on the pages at FUDCon: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-December/msg00047.html It was also brought up at each QA group meeting during this time. All the feedback that was received in response to any of those requests was considered for the page either before or at FUDCon. This is not really about 'deciding things', it's about documenting an existing process. Everything in the criteria is either based on the existing QA acceptance test plan or has been requested by the anaconda or desktop teams. > I've complained > many times about this lack of transparency and I'll continue to do so. I don't think complaint is justified in this case. It was a perfectly transparent process. There was a lot of opportunity to feed in. > Plus, why was the KDE SIG not invited? (We had at least 4 KDE SIG folks > present at FUDCon.) We had a pre-hackfest meeting for the whole FUDCon attendee list where everyone who wanted to hack on something stood up and announced what they would be hacking on. John Poelstra announced at that meeting that we would be gathering to work on the release criteria. The KDE people who were at FUDCon were at that meeting, so they were in a position to know about the work. I was running around all day telling people what we were working on, it wasn't a secret. > Are you planning to ship Fedora 13 even if the KDE Live > image is broken? That depends on whether you want us to or not. :) If a SIG has criteria they want to add to the list, and they can commit to fulfilling those criteria and be willing to take the responsibility of causing a release to slip if they _don't_ fulfill them, we can certainly add those to the lists. If KDE has minimum functional levels for the KDE spin that they can commit to, please do send them to this thread and we'll look at putting them in the criteria. We intentionally didn't specifically address the issue of the relative 'importance' of spins in the criteria as it's a difficult topic and one that's not really appropriate to decide in this place. The existing criteria didn't address this either - they didn't say anything about _any_ spin having to be not 'broken' before we ship - so there's no change there. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
