On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM, M A Young wrote: >> It isn't a matter of whether all >> the known bugs are fixed but whether we can be reasonably confident that >> there aren't any more critical bugs that haven't been reported yet or have >> been introduced by the latest updates. > > There is no way to know that ... based on this we should not add > anything new "because we can't be sure that they aren't any unknown > critical bugs". But you can base it on what bugs were raised or still open during the alpha phase. If there were a lot of issues during the alpha phase then that is likely to continue in the beta phase. That was why I was suggesting you count all blocker bugs, not just those that are still open. It doesn't guarantee that there will or won't be be any critical bugs but it does give an objective measure of how stable and well tested the code is. >> Maybe there should be some sort of >> stability test for core features (eg. no major changes, no more than a >> certain number of blocker bugs raised) after the alpha phase. > > We already have that its called "Feature freeze". I don't think that is enough, as the features can stay the same but the code used to achieve this can potentially change completely. My impression is that systemd has changed a great deal during the alpha phase even though I imagine the features it aims to provide have stayed the same. >> I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha. >> Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of >> the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked >> off. > > IIRC systemd wasn't even written back then. And that is precisely the problem - the code isn't really stable enough yet for Fedora because it has been developed very quickly and so hasn't had a chance to stablize yet. Michael Young -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
