On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 03:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 02/09/2012 03:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > 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" > > Wouldn't preserving the ability to upgrade increase the chances of > testing the new features and finding bugs? Does QA team have final say > on the release criteria That's more or less how it's worked so far, yes. We don't really have any formal 'escalation process', but if anyone was particularly unhappy with the validation process, I imagine it could be escalated to Board level. > and is there a way I can ask to reconsider this? Certainly: you can propose that the Beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria" be turned into an Alpha criterion. You'd do this by posting a message to the test@ list, quite simply, that's all there is to it. We don't have a very formal 'voting process', so far we've simply done things by consensus; it's usually the case that we're able to come up with a resolution that everyone, or perhaps everyone except one person, agrees with. If we ever get a very controversial proposal I imagine we'll have to come up with something better, but for now that's what we've got. I personally would likely be opposed to such a change, just on the grounds (as stated earlier) that we really can't get too strict at Alpha stage. Remember, people always want us to stop slipping releases, and the slips quite often happen at Alpha stage. ISTR upgrading was broken at Alpha stage in F16; if we'd been obliged to have upgrading working by Alpha, maybe the F16 release would have been delayed *another* week, and QA and anaconda teams would have lost even _more_ sleep. As long as we're sticking to six month release cycles, giant feature lists, and short freezes, there has to be a recognition that we can't demand too much in the release criteria; it just won't be practically manageable. (The cynic in me would point out that, when we're just shootin' the breeze on devel@, people are happy to demand 'more quality' out of the validation process...but when the release is delayed by two weeks and we in QA are holding out for a bug to be considered a blocker according to the criteria, suddenly everyone's pressuring us to 'just let it go and get the release done already'...) -- 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
