New schedule for FC5 Test2 ISO roll-out?

D Canfield canfield at uindy.edu
Wed Jan 11 14:14:00 UTC 2006


Peter Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 17:26 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
>   
>> Now whether or not fc5t1 counts as a "release" is debatable on many
>> different levels.
>>     
>
> No, it's very much not.  alpha/beta/test have never been guaranteed (or
> at all expected) to update perfectly from one to the next, and never
> will.
>
> Absolutely, no way.  We've got enough work to do without being this
> incredibly crazy.
>   
Maybe I'll be laughed off the list, but I do think it would be great if 
a *goal* (not a requirement) of at least test3 of a given release would 
be to upgrade to final.  Might help get a bit more testing on more 
diverse hardware if there wasn't the expectation that we will likely 
have to re-install a few weeks later.

Similarly, it would be nice if there were some notes between test 
releases (and final) pointing out any changes that might not have been 
handled by rpm -Fvh.  Especially important new packages, configs that 
might not be upgraded etc.  A few times in the past (mainly with RHL 
more than FC) I've installed a test3, and although the upgrade to final 
seems OK, I start panicking that there's something important I've 
missed.  Yes, I'm slightly neurotic. :-)

DC
 




More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list