On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 13:23 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 09:09:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > However, I think there'd be a solid case for FESCo to take anything > > like this as a blocker, and procedurally that makes more sense too - > > Changes are under FESCo's remit. So if a case like this is caught > > before release, I'd say file a FESCo ticket asking them to consider it > > as a blocker. > > This makes sense to me. It might also make sense for big changes to also > include proposed updates to the validation criteria, just as modern software > development expects new features to come with tests for those features. We do this, but only for *functional* requirements, which I think is correct. I don't want us to be pinning software versions and what specific implementation of a given function "must be" used in the release criteria, in general, because it seems like a terrible mechanism for it, and one that really wouldn't scale. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
