On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:58:07 -0700 Eric Smith <spacewar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a > > fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally > > would be working on the next release are not. If we tell them to > > stop all that and go back to normal, we could, but then fedora.next > > will likely never ever happen. > [...] > > The current problem I have with Fedora.next is that it's so > > abstract. > > How are QA folks "coding away" for Fedora.next, rather than > traditional Fedora QA processes, if Fedora.next is "so abstract"? The things they are working on have been known for years, but our 6 month release cycle with no hope of being able to work on tooling hasn't allowed them to do so. So, things like replacing autoqa with taskotron, investigating beaker and other items are likely to be very helpful in both a fedora.next and a 'traditional' fedora world. I'll stop talking for them, feel free to join them on the qa-devel list and offer your help. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
