On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 20:37 +0100, Markus Mayer wrote: > On 12/18/2013 08:22 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with > > a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be > > amended? This particular issue would have been avoided if F19's fedup > > were frozen along with F20 and if all of the destined-for-stable > > versions were tested together as a release criterion. > > > > --Andy > > > > I'am definitely in favor of this. A working upgrade is as important as a > working installation. > > A suggest that you create a draft of the release criteria change and > fill a FESCO ticket. This is not the appropriate procedure. Not everything has to go through FESCo, you know :) I've just checked and it's not really explained on the pages, so I'll see if we can fix that, but in the ordinary course of events, criteria proposals and changes go through QA, on test@ list. You could appeal from there to FESCo if you felt something was seriously wrong, of course, but it is not the first port of call. Not to mention, the release criterion is the one thing that's clearly *correct*. It's the test procedures and upgrading documentation that need tweaking. Note, all the stuff about updates-testing is a holdover from the early days of fedup in the 17->18 days, when we were iterating it very fast and testing what was in 'updates' was uninteresting. It looks like no-one went back and fixed that up later. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
