On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:48 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 17 June 2014 16:02, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com>
> I've revised the release criteria draft again, with reference to the
> useful discussions both on-list and at this morning's meeting:
> I added the firewall exception for the Cockpit web interface, clarified
> the issue about role deployment "at install time", and added new
> criteria for the cockpit management interface to be running OOTB and for
> roles to meet their "functional requirements, as defined in their role
> specification documents" - role specification documents being something
> I invented out of my ass at the meeting this morning. View that one as a
> trial balloon. :)
> As always, thoughts / comments welcome!
OK. First of all, where could I 'test' any of these things on a Fedora 20
Well, that would be pointless. We're building a new product, called
Fedora Server. That's kind of the whole point. We already have release
criteria that are more or less scope-appropriate for the product called
"Fedora 20" - they're the Fedora 20 Release Criteria, which we used to
validate the Fedora 20 release.
Now we're building a new product called Fedora Server, which is going to
include various new bits of functionality and so forth which we didn't
have before, because we think that's a good thing to do. That product is
going to need release criteria, so I'm writing them. It also needed a
PRD and a tech spec, which is why we wrote those.
We could have just built the product on spec then retrofitted a
specification onto it and thought about how to test it two weeks before
we shipped it, but I'm not sure that would be a better approach.
I haven't seen a lot of discussion on list about how someone
see current code and I am always leery of hail-mary code drops where
developers being the overly optimistic people they are don't see that the
real deadline coming up until its 23:59. I am not trying to be negative
nanny here... I just don't know if any of the items on that list are
possible without a bit more knowledge of what code there is.
Now if this discussion is on another list.. sorry that I didn't know this,
(and if it has been mentioned that I need to be on otherlist even more
The discussion has been on this list, on the tech spec and PRD -
the relevant Change proposals (and hence on devel@ and various fesco
- in the Server WG
meetings, and in Fesco and Board meetings relating to Fedora.next. There's been really
quite a lot of it. I mean...it seems like quite a big thing to have missed.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net