On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> We should change or refine the Freeze Policy page then. Having different > >> definitions of what is required for alpha to go out and what can go in > >> after alpha leads to incorrect expectations on the part of developers. > > > > I agree. I think probably all we need to do is remove the weasel-word > > 'testable' and give a more solid definition there. > > Well, the Freeze Policy page is about targets feature owners should meet, > not about Alpha blockers. Sure, but 'testable' is equally meaningless in both contexts. -- 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
