On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 15:14 +0000, "JÃhann B. GuÃmundsson" wrote: > On 03/18/2011 02:27 PM, James Laska wrote: > >> I disagree with this. A lot of what we want tested needs a graphical desktop. > >> > If we were to ship an Alpha without a working desktop, we wouldn't get much > >> > feedback (other than that the desktop doesn't work). > > > That's mostly cause we are working on outdated thoughts and dreams of > the project which the project and the community has outgrown long time > ago by shipping an "Default" in any shape or form .( From my perspective ) So we should define criteria that apply to a project model/workflow that doesn't exist? I'm all for having criteria that work for our project, which I believe this thread is addressing. > So I can get a bit on the page what is the feedback you general expect > surrounding alpha and from whom? > ( Rawhide users/reporters should know it's broken in the first place and > provide feedback ) > > Shipping "Alpha/Beta" is only a marketing gimmick anyway and it outdated > the day we finally ship that stuff.. You forgot to add ... "in my opinion" ;) Marketing is certainly one important angle in *any* release milestone. I wouldn't say it's only driver. If we want to debate the merits of release milestones, that perhaps should be a different thread. > > I agree with Bruno. The suggestion conflicts with one of the stated > > objectives of the Alpha, "Test accepted features of Fedora 15" as this > > would prevent testing of any desktop-related features. > > If I'm not mistaken the the feature process entirely optional so tying > the "testing" of features into our release cycle so closely does not > make any sense to be perhaps someone is willing to refresh my memory by > explaining it to me why we did that in the first place? Read the lists/wiki for the history. The feature process has it's flaws. What adjustments do you recommend? > > That said, if we ever have SIG-specific criteria, the proposed change > > would be perfectly suitable criteria for the Server-SIG. > > It is time for us ( QA ) to get more in times with the evolution of the > project and start considering SIG specific criteria or better yet a > solution more consistent with and built upon other things we have been > working like critical-path. As I said in the previous mail, I don't disagree with the idea of SIG-specific criteria. The beauty of this behind-the-times team is that you can propose an idea, and if it's good+scalable+effective, it will stick. My caution with SIG-specific criteria is that I believe there are policy issues beyond just criteria definition. We are hijacking Adam's thread, so perhaps this would be best started as a new topic... describe your vision of SIG-specific criteria, what is success in that world? Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
