On 2013-07-01 6:47, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 13:59 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:05:56AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I like the idea of 19.1 pretty unofficially or untested, which fix
> > some issues on mac installs. Which is basically someone run pungi
> > with new boot installer stuff.
> We are currently pretty unsetup for any kind of point releases.
I think this is an interesting longer-term idea to consider,
especially once
we have the idea of batching non-critical updates in place. That batch
makes
a pretty good starting place for point releases.
We already have a pretty decent tool for tracking what goes into the GA
release:
https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/19/final/buglist
I have been thinking recently that it is a pity to just turn this off
once the GA comes, and let updates flow in unchecked. The tool could
easily be used to control what goes into a batched, qa-ed f19.1 update.
I am still wondering where the QA resources to do this are going to
magically spring from. Right now we have to deal with post-19 release
emergencies, test updates for 17, 18 and 19, and work on rather a lot of
improvements for the F20 cycle: we are trying to write Taskbot, we need
to revise the Final release criteria, update the entire validation test
case set, look over the Fedora 20 Change set to plan testing for
significant Changes, plan the F20 Test Day cycle, and then we go right
into F20 Alpha testing. Frankly, we are unlikely to achieve all of the
above, never mind somehow finding time to 'curate' an F19.1 release.
Grand plans are all very well, but they need to be based on a realistic
assessment of available resources.
--
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
