On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 13:56 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/10/2013 12:36 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Plus, in relation to this - the llvmpipe issue brings up that one of > > the 'release blocking desktops' *does not work*. This would, by definition, > > block the release unless we intend to have different criteria for ARM as a > > primary arch. > > Then we should remove the default label and "release blocking > desktop(s)" entirely concept with it. > > It's far outdated anyway and relic from the past. > > Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to > provide the necessary QA/Releng resources from their sub-community > ( if no such thing the relevant party needs to build one ) while we QA > and Releng focus our available resources on the components that > everyone in the whole distribution use and provide the necessary sub > community with the assistance in relation to QA and Releng. I'm afraid I can't agree. I like the simplicity of the model you're proposing, but from a practical point of view, there is still a commonly held perception that there is a 'product' called Fedora which is basically composed of what you get if you go to get.fedoraproject.org, download one of the things we push at you there, and install it. Practically speaking, I believe we have to QA that 'thing called Fedora' as a whole. I don't think your model quite matches what people perceive Fedora to be. -- 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
