On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:46 -0400, James Laska wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 12:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:27 -0400, James Laska wrote: > > > > > > "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade > > > > installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any > > > > official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either > > > > via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded > > > > system must meet all release criteria" > > > > > > Does it make sense to phase this criteria in? Meaning, it would be > > > nice-to-have this release, and blocker material next release? I'd have > > > to see what testing results, and want to see if the desktop@ team also > > > agrees, since they'll be responsible for resolving these issues. > > > > I didn't really see it as a change, more a clarification. In practice > > we've always treated it as 'upgrades have to work' in the sense that the > > upgraded system must actually run, not just 'the upgrade process must > > complete'. So I'm not sure it's necessary. > > True true, I was thinking more about some of the nuances with applets, > icons and all applications run without error on the upgraded system. > But you clearly limited this to a @default installation, so I think that > covers my concerns about this covering *too* many failures we (Fedora) > couldn't possibly respond to in a timely manner. yeah, it doesn't mean that we should block the release if any non-default bit of anyone's random upgrade test fails. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
