On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > On one hand we have people complaining about the quality of updates, on the > > other hand we're happily releasing crap we know is broken. > > It's an *alpha*. 'Crap we know is broken' is more or less the definition > of alphas. =) > Just a clarification point: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Alpha_Freeze_Policy # At Alpha Milestone, all packages should testable and feature complete--whether they are "official features" of the release or not So broken, yes. But the extent of breakage is important. Breakage that results in core components being untestable would seem to be blockers under the current policy -- the result of discussing them would be whether to get an update into the Alpha Release, revert the broken package, or simply ship with the untestable piece documented and remember to add more extensive testing for that at a later point in the cycle. (Pointing out since F-12 cycle we had people confused about what was expected of the Alpha release). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpsHj9FebXYb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
