On 05/18/2011 01:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > to specify the basis on which QA's 'vote' at this meeting is cast. It's > really entirely deterministic; there's no discretion involved. If there > are open unaddressed blockers, we do not approve the candidate for > release. If there are no open unaddressed blockers, we do approve the > candidate for release. There's really no wiggle room in this: any reason > we have to not approve the release should be phrased as a release > blocking bug in any case. Then I simply propose that the go-no meeting will be dropped and instead after we have confirm that there are no unaddressed blockers and we have confirmed that all release criteria have been met on a blocker review meeting then the chair holder of that meeting sends an ack from the QA to fpl leader and cc fesco and release engineering team which then will send their ack when ready and ones fpl has recived ack from all three parties he declares a release ( Alpha/Beta/GA ). JBG -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
