On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 02:04 +0000, "JÃhann B. GuÃmundsson" wrote: > 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 ). I'm open to the possibility for sure, the meeting usually winds up being either a straightforward rubber stamp or a dissection of why we can't ship, neither of which really really needs to happen. It's possibly a good thing to have just as a failsafe in case something really odd happens, I guess. But then, we also have the release readiness meeting, I'm not really sure we need to have a go/no-go that's separate from that now we have a clear release blocker process. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
