On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 04:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 02/09/2012 04:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I would request that you bring it up in the next QA meeting and discuss > it even if you are opposed to it. As far as Fedora 16 alpha problem is > concerned, I think you are optimizing at the wrong level. Changes that > destabilize the release to that extend has to be handled in a different > branch or split out or postponed. We don't usually discuss criteria proposals at meetings because it takes a long time and not enough people are present (timezone issues). Async discussion via the mailing list has proven to work better. As I said, you can do this; anyone can propose changes to the criteria. Just post a mail to test@ proposing it. There's no 'required form' for such mails but if you want to look at how it's been done in the past, just look through the archives for mails with 'criter' or 'propos' in the subject. -- 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
