Fedora release criteria completely revised
robinstar1574 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 15:48:30 UTC 2009
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:47:31 -0600, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 15:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria.
>> > > John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final
>> > > content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA
>> > > (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating),
>> > > anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team
>> > > (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an
>> > > earlier stage).
>> > So once again things get decided by a small group of people in an in-person
>> > meeting and whoever didn't happen to be at the right place at the right time
>> > only gets to know the final decision after the fact? :-(
>> Nope. This has been discussed for several weeks now. John Poelstra
>> posted the initial draft to test-list on November 20th, and asked for
>> He posted a further request for feedback on December 2nd, with an
>> explicit explanation that we would be gathering to finish working on the
>> pages at FUDCon:
>> It was also brought up at each QA group meeting during this time.
>> All the feedback that was received in response to any of those requests
>> was considered for the page either before or at FUDCon.
>> This is not really about 'deciding things', it's about documenting an
>> existing process. Everything in the criteria is either based on the
>> existing QA acceptance test plan or has been requested by the anaconda
>> or desktop teams.
>> > I've complained
>> > many times about this lack of transparency and I'll continue to do so.
>> I don't think complaint is justified in this case. It was a perfectly
>> transparent process. There was a lot of opportunity to feed in.
>> > Plus, why was the KDE SIG not invited? (We had at least 4 KDE SIG folks
>> > present at FUDCon.)
>> We had a pre-hackfest meeting for the whole FUDCon attendee list where
>> everyone who wanted to hack on something stood up and announced what
>> they would be hacking on. John Poelstra announced at that meeting that
>> we would be gathering to work on the release criteria. The KDE people
>> who were at FUDCon were at that meeting, so they were in a position to
>> know about the work. I was running around all day telling people what we
>> were working on, it wasn't a secret.
>> > Are you planning to ship Fedora 13 even if the KDE Live
>> > image is broken?
>> That depends on whether you want us to or not. :) If a SIG has criteria
>> they want to add to the list, and they can commit to fulfilling those
>> criteria and be willing to take the responsibility of causing a release
>> to slip if they _don't_ fulfill them, we can certainly add those to the
>> lists. If KDE has minimum functional levels for the KDE spin that they
>> can commit to, please do send them to this thread and we'll look at
>> putting them in the criteria.
>> We intentionally didn't specifically address the issue of the relative
>> 'importance' of spins in the criteria as it's a difficult topic and one
>> that's not really appropriate to decide in this place. The existing
>> criteria didn't address this either - they didn't say anything about
>> _any_ spin having to be not 'broken' before we ship - so there's no
>> change there.
> In the future could all decisions about Fedora be run through me prior to
> them being enacted?
You can always fix that by starting your own distro tangent. They just voted on what they provide.
PS: What does sarcasm HTML tag do? It caused an error in my specialized email reader.
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
More information about the fedora-devel-list