On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 19:02 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 10/24/2012 06:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Right. I do wish you wouldn't exaggerate things, Johann. The criteria > > are a part of Fedora as a whole, they define what the project considers > > minimum acceptable functionality for each release point. They are not > > solely a QA issue, other teams clearly have input into the question. > > we are the one who create the criteria > we are the ones that follow it > we are the ones that test if the relevant stuff meets the criteria > > Yes developers and packagers might do mistakes but in the end it's we ( > QA/Releng ) the ones that are ultimately responsible for the overall > quality of the release > we are the last line of defense for the end user and we are the ones > that should handle this ( from my pov. ) > > Asking the relevant developer group in this case Anaconda if they think > we are setting *our* distribution criteria to high to meet their *own* > software or even the group of individuals that approved the newUI > feature accepted it and allowed it with no better contingency plan than > what was given. I just don't agree with your principles here. 'We', as in QA, are not the only ones who create the criteria, no. The initial major revision of the criteria was done with significant input from the development teams. Changes since have often involved the development teams. Fundamentally I don't think it's correct to say that it is QA's job and QA's job alone to define what the requirements are for a Fedora release to be made. It's QA's job to *check* those requirements. I don't see how we can say that the best way to *define* the requirements is for QA to decide what they are and everyone else to butt out. Defining the requirements involves issues beyond those that are QA specific. It is more along the lines of the 'what Fedora is supposed to be' question. You can't draw up criteria without an answer to the questions 'what is a Fedora Alpha release for?' 'what is a Fedora Beta release for?' 'what is a Fedora Final release for?', which are questions that go far wider than QA alone. > An group of people that seem to be incapable of > answering one simply question I have asked on numerous occasion when it > became clear that the newUI installer is no way ready to be released to > the general public. Why the rush? why not push it back a release to > allow it to stabilize a bit more? > > And so I quote yourself to FESCO... > > "Additionally, RH has asked its staff on the anaconda team to prioritize > work on a pending RHEL release over work on Fedora 18, and that is > happening, which may further delay work on the upgrade tool and the > current blocker list." > > Yet another alarm bell ringing and where does this leave us ( the > project ) with the installer? > > So excuse me for being skeptical about FESCO decision making and an > development group that no longer has the time to develop the > distributions installer for showing concerns and "exaggerate things. Now you're just muddying the waters. None of the above really has any relation to the question of discussing release criteria revisions. -- 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
