Re: Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2013-08-14)

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> · Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:41:19 -0400



    On 08/15/2013 03:55 PM, Stephen John
      Smoogen wrote:

    
          On 15 August 2013 15:48, Matthew
            Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
            wrote:

            Oh, and
              to clarify - upgrades were supported even before then, but

              required booting Anaconda from new install media. That's
              been true since

              the Red Hat Linux days, so years before Fedora even
              existed.

              
            I believe we are arguing over words which have
              different meanings depending on what each person is
              talking about.
          
        
    Agreed

    
            Does supported mean:
            

            a) We guarantee that upgrade works always and without
              problems?
          
        
    This is what end users think of when they read "Officially
    supported" with even higher demand if they are existing RHEL
    customers...

    
            b) We guarantee that upgrade code works but may
              encounter problems if you have done stuff other than a
              default install/stuff.
          
        
    Some form of middle ground of this is what we have currently
    implemented in QA and test for but even there we cannot "guarantee"
    anything, like if we take the default desktop installation how well
    can Gnome itself handle upgrades between releases ( think for
    example *conf schema changes here ) 

    
    Now with rings and "servers" I'm afraid we ( as in QA ) have to
    start officially support which ever application are in it which
    often bring incompatible changes with them. 

    
            c) We guarantee that the upgrade code is there, and it
              should work but you should know what you are doing
          
        
    This is what the QA attitude used to be, before "official upgrade
    support".

    
            d) There is some code, we worked on it, you can
              activate it, but that is all we can say.
            

            Each of those has been said of upgrade by various
              developers over the years (Jeremy Katz would try to get it
              down to D but Gafton would want it to be b) and every new
              person on anaconda would say they wanted to get to a
              someday.)
          
        
    What's alarming with the decision to officially support upgrades
    that it was done without consulting the QA community, which are the
    ones that have to come up with the test cases,make the necessary
    changes to the release criteria, essentially have to do all the work
    and above all test it. 

    
    With the upcoming changes we have to ensure all the supporting sig
    within the project ( qa,releng,infra etc... ) are being properly
    communicated,informed and consulted with, in regards to any decision
    which directly affects them and the community surrounding them.

    
    In the end of the day they ( as in all the supporting sig ) are the
    ones that will have to do all the work as well as allocate resources
    necessary to do it.

    
    JBG

  
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct