On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 09:42 -0400, Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote: > <I am pretty much out of the fedora process, but the wording above > leaves me a bit more queasy for using the downstream products.> > > I assume you(QA) are at least doing a cursory review to see if it does > "constitute an infringement of these quality standards", so that IF the > feature is still present at the release(a choice of FESCo), then the > quality(a choice of QA) will still be at the level we expect. > i.e. *just* because the bug is on a "feature XX", QA is not just > pitching it back to FESCo, and when final release comes the bug gets > missed (from a QA perspective) because it was part of a feature that > FESCo is accepting. > > Just looking for some more clarity on this concept, thanks. Yes, that's correct. The way I look at it is that the feature process just isn't really reelvant to the release validation process at all. The release validation process takes the code in the pre-release to be tested and makes sure it meets the quality standards - the release criteria. It doesn't matter if that code happens to be part of an 'Official Feature' or not. If a bug in a Feature infringes the release criteria, it's a release blocker. The issue here is just that we shouldn't have 'feature XX is not complete' as a release blocker. 'feature XX causes the system not to boot' would certainly be a blocker. =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
