On 08/15/2013 02:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 01:02:42PM -0400, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Well whomever choose to decide that we "support" upgrades in the
first place bypassed the QA community entirely in making that
decision as well as to which tool is "preferred","supported" or
"recommended".
If QA is testing something other than the supported upgrade mechanism,
then QA should rectify that. The communication has been very clear -
if fedup fails to upgrade then that's considered a bug, and if any other
approach fails then it may not be.
Our release criteria and everything we defined *after* we found out that
we suddenly supported upgrades is solid which is not what I was saying
or referring to.
Could you point me to the individual(s) and the discussion to support
upgrades in the first place, took place so we in the QA community can
finally see who made the decision to open that pandora box and why?
It might even reveal why the QA community was excluded from that
discussion in the first place...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
