Enhancing Our Fedora 13 Release Criteria

[James Laska]

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:00 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 20:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 15:43 -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> > > I've been been thinking for a while that it would benefit us to rework 
> > > our release criteria 
> > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria) from being just 
> > > a description of blocker bugs to more about the broader criteria that 
> > > needs to be met to issue a public release.
> > 
> > I was talking to James Laska about this earlier today, and we both have
> > thoughts on it too. I think it's a great idea to have revised and more
> > detailed criteria, and I especially like the organization - a main page
> > with an overview, and detailed criteria for each release.
> 
> Well, the above says it already, but a big +1 from me on having release
> specific content.  From my experience, this has always been implicit as
> we all slug through the release ... so I appreciate having what we've
> already done a more explicit.
> 
> > I had one major high-level suggestion. Release criteria are more or less
> > unavoidably partially subjective. I don't think it's feasible to come up
> > with concrete rules to cover every possible situation. Therefore, the
> > criteria should explicitly embrace and cover this subjectivity. It
> > should be made clear that things like 'boots successfully' are to some
> > degree dependent on subjective, contextual judgements; do we block the
> > Alpha for a bug that stops 0.1% of systems booting? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? I
> > think rather than trying to define something like this, we should just
> > explicitly acknowledge that it'll be a judgment call.
> 
> Yeah, this will be a tough nut to crack ... but I don't feel like this
> is new and scary for us.  During F12, the group got into a good rhythm
> when it came to assessing the impact of blocker bugs.  First, how common
> of a use case is it.  Next, how common is the hardware environment.  And
> last, something that Adam pointed out to me, how common is the local
> system configuration (e.g. are we using a custom xorg.conf to drive
> output to 2 HDTV's -- maybe a bad example, but you get the idea).
> 
> Just a thought, either ...
> 
> 1) We adjust the following 3 criteria (grabbed from the Alpha page) to
> include a statement about "common hardware/configuration".
> 
>   * The installed system boots and starts up properly
>   * The installed system is able to download updates with yum.
>   * Installer boots and runs on all primary architectures: i686 and
>     x86_64
> 
> 2) Or we leave the above criteria as is, and add instructions to the
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ for how to evaluate if
> your uninstallable system is a common issue or not?

Looks like part#2 is partially stubbed out for us already :)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Alpha_Blocker_Bugs

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-test-list/attachments/20091123/f1136923/attachment.sig>