On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The > > working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding > > whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a > > network connection, and install updates'. That's what the current Alpha > > release criteria and validation tests aim to explicitly codify and > > verify. > > But it also fails that definition and this was ignored just because it > didn't happen in the GNOME spin (which will always be the GNOME spin, not > the "desktop spin", but *A* desktop spin; FESCo, the Board or any other > committee deciding otherwise doesn't change this, it's like deciding that > apples are "fruit" and any other fruit can only be an "orange fruit", a > "pear fruit" etc., but not a "fruit" because only apples are that). :-/ Please stop making the same point five times, I'm reluctant to reply to you because I don't want to repeat myself all over the place. I already explained this, multiple times, on email and IRC. I'm sorry you're not happy with the explanation, but saying so again and again and again isn't getting us anywhere. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
