On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:00 -0500, James Laska wrote: > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 20:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 15:43 -0800, John Poelstra wrote: > > > I've been been thinking for a while that it would benefit us to rework > > > our release criteria > > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria) from being just > > > a description of blocker bugs to more about the broader criteria that > > > needs to be met to issue a public release. > > > > I was talking to James Laska about this earlier today, and we both have > > thoughts on it too. I think it's a great idea to have revised and more > > detailed criteria, and I especially like the organization - a main page > > with an overview, and detailed criteria for each release. > > Well, the above says it already, but a big +1 from me on having release > specific content. From my experience, this has always been implicit as > we all slug through the release ... so I appreciate having what we've > already done a more explicit. > > > I had one major high-level suggestion. Release criteria are more or less > > unavoidably partially subjective. I don't think it's feasible to come up > > with concrete rules to cover every possible situation. Therefore, the > > criteria should explicitly embrace and cover this subjectivity. It > > should be made clear that things like 'boots successfully' are to some > > degree dependent on subjective, contextual judgements; do we block the > > Alpha for a bug that stops 0.1% of systems booting? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? I > > think rather than trying to define something like this, we should just > > explicitly acknowledge that it'll be a judgment call. > > Yeah, this will be a tough nut to crack ... but I don't feel like this > is new and scary for us. During F12, the group got into a good rhythm > when it came to assessing the impact of blocker bugs. First, how common > of a use case is it. Next, how common is the hardware environment. And > last, something that Adam pointed out to me, how common is the local > system configuration (e.g. are we using a custom xorg.conf to drive > output to 2 HDTV's -- maybe a bad example, but you get the idea). > > Just a thought, either ... > > 1) We adjust the following 3 criteria (grabbed from the Alpha page) to > include a statement about "common hardware/configuration". > > * The installed system boots and starts up properly > * The installed system is able to download updates with yum. > * Installer boots and runs on all primary architectures: i686 and > x86_64 > > 2) Or we leave the above criteria as is, and add instructions to the > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ for how to evaluate if > your uninstallable system is a common issue or not? Looks like part#2 is partially stubbed out for us already :) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Alpha_Blocker_Bugs Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
