On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:02 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Suddenly? They always have been "supported" that even dates back to the Redhat Linux days ... > 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? See above. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
