On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:05:29PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > To give a practical example, if 'KDE X.Y with shiny new IM client' is > > > listed as a feature for the Alpha, we'd say the freeze policy requires > > > the new IM client should actually be present in the Alpha package set. > > > But we wouldn't say the release should be blocked if there's a bug which > > > causes it to fail to launch, even though this arguably makes it 'not > > > testable'. The theory is that there's no point holding the Alpha release > > > to fix something we can fix equally well in post-Alpha updates, since > > > there's no net benefit to anyone. But we should probably discuss this in > > > more detail. > > > > > Big +1 to that. I don't care too much what the criteria is as long as its > > consistent and doesn't put package maintainers in an impossible position wrt > > getting their development done and into the next release. > > OK, cool. How do you want to move this forward? > I think Jesse was the creator of the Alpha Freeze Policy. So maybe it's just something for releng and QA to hash out a definition of testable or wording that better describes the current situation? -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpoUvrUi1r50.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
