On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:00 +0200, Sandro "red" Mathys wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:26, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 15:39 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > > >> I don't see how it can be a "go" if Live doesn't work without > >> enforcing=0: > >> > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728863 > >> > >> I'm surprised RC3 was rushed so quickly with no resoution to this. I > >> expect an RC4 will be necessary. > > > > We're working on that. The reason RC3 was spun was because we thought it > > was solved with an selinux-policy update that was included in RC3. This > > is all documented in the bug. > > True, it is documented in the bug - but not as you state here. The > latest selinux-policy was in RC2 already and I had it tested within > ~2h after the announcement. The result was clearly, that the issue at > hand was not yet fixed (see comment #10). There have been no changes > on this front before RC3 was released, so no chance of having it > fixed. > > Just trying to correct the impression here, but I'm sure there's been > reasons for RC3 on another front (libreport or so). Actually, I think > RCs were spun too early and more TCs had been necessary - but that's > mostly a naming thing so never mind. RC3 was done quickly to correct a single obvious mistake in RC2 - an update RC2 should have included was left out - so we didn't really do a full survey of other bugs to check if there were more issues. RC3 is really just 'what RC2 was meant to be'. There's a clear distinction between TCs and RCs. RCs happen post-freeze and can only be RCs if all confirmed blockers are addressed when they're produced (when we've decided to spin an image post-freeze, during 'RC time', but with known blockers remaining, we've called it a TC). This was the case for RC2 (and RC1); it just turns out the apparent fix for one blocker did not actually fix it. As described above we didn't technically follow the strict letter of this policy for RC3, but there's a reason for that (also see above). =) We have no precedent for going backwards from RCs to TCs, either, so really the other choice would have been not to spin an RC3 to fix the obvious bug in RC2 at all, which doesn't seem like a better plan. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
