Fedora 12 QA retrospective - feedback needed
poelstra at redhat.com
Tue Dec 1 00:06:07 UTC 2009
On 11/26/2009 07:59 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:41, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at hi.is> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2009 07:03 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:15:30 -0800,
>>> Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> even despite that, public testing of RCs can _sometimes_ be useful, but
>>>> the problem is that if we publicise them any more than they're already
>>>> publicised, the single server on which they're located will bog down
>>>> stop people who really need them from getting them fast enough. And
>>>> given the time constraints, it's practically impossible to mirror or
>>>> torrent them usefully.
>>> Would providing detailed documentation for people to build these images
>>> using a small amount of data from releng and the rest from public (or
>>> mirrors be worth the effort to set up? This is a higher bar than dealing
>>> with a complete image and there may not be enough people who take
>>> of it to be worth the effort. I am also not sure if the process is
>>> so as to get bit for bit accuracy from private spins. But it does
>>> seem there
>>> should be a way to pull most of the data for the image from mirrors
>>> than from releng's server.
>> That wont work we need to make sure all the testers are testing the same
>> bits hence it's best that we create and hand out the images.....
> That's what beta, which used to be named preview, is for. It is the
> image we sync out to the world. The RCs come shortly after and fix
> anything critical found in the beta. RCs are fast and furious, no chance
> in mirroring and waiting days for feedback.
Do we say this directly anywhere in our docs... spell out the purpose
for Alpha and Beta?
I'm trying to pull more of this stuff together so we have a a canonical
place to point people to explaining how our release processes work.
More information about the fedora-test-list