On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 16:54 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 14:44, Brian (bex) Exelbierd <bexelbie@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:25 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 09/25/2018 01:35 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > With today's Beta release, the release announcement post for Fedora > > > > Magazine was not ready. As a result, the announcement went out a > > > > little late and then only due to a drop-everything effort (thanks, > > > > stickster!). We have a proposal to add a fourth criterion for the > > > > Go/No-Go decision, beginning with F29 Final: > > > > > > > > 4. The release announcement post for Fedora Magazine is substantially > > > complete > > > > As a reminder, these are the existing criteria: > > > > > > > > 1. No remaining blocker bugs > > > > 2. Release candidate compose is available > > > > 3. Test matrices for [milestone = Alpha, Beta, Final] are fully > > > completed > > > > > > I'm prefer to add a new milestone of 'day before release' and put it > > > there. I think after the 'go' some folks who would be helpful in making > > > the announcement have more time to devote to it. Also, it would seem sad > > > to me to be 'go' except for an announcement, and slip a week. > > > > > > > It is sad. But it is also something we should want. Shipping bits > > without telling people how to consume them (docs) or that they exist > > (release announcements) is essentially not shipping. We need docs and > > release notes to block releases. They are an integral part of attracting > > users and contributors. > > > > regards, > > > > bex > > > > +1, > > The magazine article is used by people making reviews of the new Fedora > (for example in podcast or videos), I think this is a critical part of the > release and we should give ourself sometime to polish them. I hope that > having it as a release criterion will allow us to focus on it. If I am not > mistaken we experienced the same situation during F28 release cycle so the > current situation is far from being ideal. So, a QA opinion here: 1. I'm fine with the overall release process blocking, in some sense, on things like release announcements not being done. 2. I believe this should **NOT** be handled through the things actually called the "Fedora Release Criteria" and the process for nominating and reviewing "release blocker" bugs. That process is designed for bugs in *the distribution itself*. It is not a very good fit for this sort of thing, and it should not be the QA team's job to check if release notes are complete and so on (which making these things into "release criteria" would cause). 3. The Go/No-Go meeting is not necessarily the best place to decide on this, but I'm open to it being chosen. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
