Fedora release criteria completely revised

[James Laska]

On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 14:55 -0800, 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).
> 
> The new structure is based around a general page and specific pages for the
> Fedora 13 Alpha, Beta and Final releases (which have been written
> generically so they can easily be converted into pages for F14 and all
> future releases just by copying and pasting). You can find the criteria
> here:
> 
> 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
> 
> they should contain everything you need to know. We based most of the
> criteria around testing that was already being carried out but with no
> formal policy basis, with additional suggestions from the anaconda and
> desktop teams.
> 
> We will follow these criteria for the Fedora 13 release process. So if you
> can see any problems or potential trouble with any of this, please do reply
> and let us know!
> 
> Desktop team - can you please let us know of any additional things that you
> would expect to be working at each point during the release cycle? Note
> that only things that *must* be working at each point should be listed on
> these pages, not nice-to-haves. You must be able to commit to the idea
> that, if any criterion on the page is not met, we would slip the release in
> question.

Not sure if this has been raised yet, but are we specifying when in the
release that packages should be signed with a valid signature?  I
believe packages are signed at all release milestones, but I'd like to
clear up that assumption.

Thanks,
James

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091211/3a266d9d/attachment.sig>