fre 2011-11-04 klockan 11:53 -0600 skrev Kevin Fenzi: > If we do this, next cycle we should NOT do any 'two part' go/no-go > meetings. The "two part" meetings were both about critical blockers that were known and actively being worked on at the time of the meeting. This situation will happen no matter what day the Go/No-Go meetings are on. The question asked is if having this "soft deadline" style is acceptable, or if we should stick to documented procedure where the release should have slipped at both those occations. While it's nice that we did not slip further (esp for me meeting users on the 11-13 Nov at FSCONS), it at the same time sets the wrong tone about seriousness of having critical bugs discovered such late in the process, and creates an enormous amount of stress and uncertainty for everyone involved. I do not think it's a healthy sign to have as many tc+rc spins as we had this time. In how many of these respins were issues not reproducible during a netinstall? Regards Henrik -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
