Proposed release criteria revisions

[James Laska]

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 09:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:58:26 +0000,
>   "\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 03/17/2011 08:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Alpha: Actually account for firstboot, which we completely ignored until
> > > now. The criterion about 'booting to a working desktop' was split into
> > > two and now covers firstboot. I also explicitly called out encryption
> > > here, and tweaked the language about 'user intervention' to 'unintended
> > > user intervention'.
> > 
> > I think we should continue to ignore it along with not depending alpha 
> > on a working graphical desktop or in more current terms graphical.target 
> > of any kind
> 
> I disagree with this. A lot of what we want tested needs a graphical desktop.
> If we were to ship an Alpha without a working desktop, we wouldn't get much
> feedback (other than that the desktop doesn't work).

I agree with Bruno.  The suggestion conflicts with one of the stated
objectives of the Alpha, "Test accepted features of Fedora 15" as this
would prevent testing of any desktop-related features.

That said, if we ever have SIG-specific criteria, the proposed change
would be perfectly suitable criteria for the Server-SIG.  

Thanks,
James

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110318/69471a59/attachment.bin