On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:10 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > Hard to believe, but Fedora QA starts its "Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance > > Test Plan" testing this Thursday (2010-07-08). > > > > We've run out of time and run way to implement a new means of tracking > > blocker bugs for Fedora--previously discussed in the context of using > > flags in Bugzilla. We'll continue to use the same process we've used > > for past releases. > > Erm, really? We could throw the existing proposal in in an afternoon if > we wanted to. I was fine with it. Jesse, what was your plan here? If there is a solution that addresses the problems identified during F-13, and it can be implemented in *short* time. It would be compelling. I'm a fan of solving problems with tooling, but I'm not convinced that is where our big investment should be for the upcoming release, or that it fully addresses the problems encountered during F-13. I outlined 3 basic blocker bug process recommendations that are attainable+sustainable and address the problems we had during F-13 [1]. If someone feels flags are the better solution, and can develop a proposal for creating bugzilla flags, the policy for managing them, and bot automation to enforce them, I'm sure we'd all be happy to provide feedback. However, I left that out of the F-14 QA recommendations because I'm not convinced that's the best use of our time. If you are looking for something to work on to improve F-14 QA, check out (or add to) https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/milestone/Fedora%2014. Thanks, James Thanks, James [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_QA_Retrospective#Blocker_Review
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
