Announcing ProvenTesters Policy

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 15:00 -0400, James Laska wrote:

> We've also been accumulating group membership requests.  Are we ready to
> start processing these requests?
> 
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=Proventester+Mentor+Request&order=priority

I guess one thing we should agree on first is what we will be 'teaching'
our applicants. =)

I think so far we've informally wound up working on this logic:

1. We're expected to review 'critical path' updates
2. The 'critical path' definition is about being able to boot the
system, start a graphical desktop, and do updates
3. Therefore we ought to be looking at whether the packages contain
regressions which break these: we should look at updates from the
perspective of whether they prevent us from carrying out critical path
tasks

is that roughly accurate, for a first cut?

Alternatively, we could use the release criteria, and check that updates
don't introduce regressions which would infringe the release criteria.
This is effectively a superset of the first option, as part of what the
release criteria enforce is the critical path functionality.

(Boy, the grammar in this post is horrible!)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net