On Wednesday 02 December 2009 12:53:03 John Poelstra wrote: > Thank you to everyone who provided feedback to the first email and added > updates to the wiki and talk pages. I've also gone through the emails > to make sure the points raised there were integrated. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria > > This is a last reminder to review the pages if you have not already. We > will be discussing and resolving all of the outstanding items on the on > "Talk" tab for each wiki page during the FUDCon Hackfests on Sunday > (2009-12-06) with a collection of people from QA, Releng and Development. I propose that an additional requirement be added to the list for "Fedora_Release_Criteria: If a BZ report for a bug which includes a comment which specifies an updated package to address the problem should have that package in the Everything, updates, or updates-testing repository ... whether the BZ report is closed or not. If a bug is claimed to be fixed in an updated package but that package is not available in one of the "standard" repositories, then claiming the bug is fixed is misleading. Naturally, I would like to see all such updates posted to Everything or (stable, day-zero) updates but I don't consider that top be a reasonable requirement. Re-discovery of fixed problems is a waste of everyone time. Gene -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
