On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 03:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 02/09/2012 02:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > As far > > > as things-that-are-actually-QA are concerned: we mostly go by the > > > release validation process, and per the criteria, upgrades have to work > > > by Beta, not Alpha. ' > > > > Any particular reason for this? I think it makes sense to ensure > > upgrades work in an alpha release as well. > > We don't necessarily think so. I mean, Alpha is *alpha*. We don't want > to set the bar too high. It's mainly meant to boot and run and let you > test the features that have been implemented. If you look at the point > of an Alpha, there isn't a whole lot of point in supporting upgrades to > it. You're not meant to be running Alpha on a machine you actually > *care* about (although I know some of us do, I'm typing this on one :>). > You're meant to be installing Alpha on a disposable throwaway > machine/partition/VM and testing specific things on it. Given that, > upgrade isn't a particularly important thing to have working, because > there's no reason to preserve a previous configuration (which after all > is what an upgrade does). As the release criteria put it - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Alpha_Release_Criteria: "The objectives of the Alpha release are to: Publicly release installable media versions of a feature complete test release Test accepted features of Fedora 17 Identify as many F17Beta blocker bugs as possible Identify as many F17Blocker blocker bugs as possible" -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
