On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 22:41 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 15:11 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > > Looking at the schedule[1] today I am confused by one thing, > > > Fedora policy > > > states that any slip pushes out all other milestones. which > > > would mean Beta > > > Freeze is next week not this week. > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/Schedule > > Er. Yes. That's a point. > > > > I tend to just take it on faith that the schedules get adjusted > > after > > slips, but AFAICS, the F24 schedule was not adjusted after the > > Alpha > > slip. > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Releases/24/Schedule&di > > ff=439901&oldid=435873 > > is when the wiki schedule was adjusted for the Alpha slip, but the > > only > > date that was changed was the Alpha release date, no other dates > > were > > touched. > > > > As things stand it's possible we could make the non-adjusted Beta > > dates, though there's some missing test coverage we'd really need > > to > > get to, but it's definitely not what we've done before without an > > explicit decision to *not* change the later dates. > > I have only changed the Alpha release date and intentionally have > left > the Beta and Final the same. This has been communicated to Marketing, > unfortunately (my fault) not to rel-eng nor QA. The reason was mainly > not to affect F25. > Is it acceptable to have Beta & Final release dates for F24 as stated > on [1], or we really need to slip these dates ? >From QA's side we can at least try to make the unamended date, as I said. -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
