-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
El Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:11:19 -0500 (EST)
Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com> escribió:
----- Original Message -----
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> El Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:49:05 -0500 (EST)
> Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com> escribió:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:56:57 -0500,
> > > Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not
> > > >to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the
> > > >Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all
> > > >deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in
> > > >the meeting?).
> > >
> > > For consistancy and blame I think that is a good idea. Dennis
> > > shouldn't feel the heat for when screw ups result in a spin
> > > being dropped. Having it done at that point also keeps people
> > > from hoping for some float to get the sign off done.
> > >
> > > >Do we have anything as
> > >
> > > >for marking tests passed or just
> > > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins?
> > >
> > > I don't think so.
> > >
> > > >I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think
> > > >covered it pretty well. I'm sorry if I missed the spis
> > > >process, I know it was happening and now I know it's enforced
> > > >- so let's try to find the way how to put it into schedule,
> > > >communicate it better. It's definitely worth having it, and
> > > >be more than happy to help with it!
> > >
> > > This policy is change is something that should have been
> > > communicated to you, so there is blame to go around. I could
> > > have thought of doing that since I see enough to have been able
> > > to draw the conclusion that this is something that should have
> > > been on the spins schedule.
> > Current spins schedule is at , is the rest of tasks still
> > valid? I'm going to add sign off there too.
> > Jaroslav
> > 
> > http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-spins-tasks.html
> as the Spins are non release blocking i feel the testing and sign
> off should happen before QA requests RC1. from RC1 on it may be
> impossible to get a fix in.
That's a good point, for other desktops than blocking, potentially
blocking issues are considered as automatic FE but it does not mean
fix will be pulled in.
In schedule, we don't have specific date to request RC as it's
based on the current state of accepted blocker bugs (RC is blockers
free). First TC milestone is probably too early. Usually we don't
have RC week before first Go/No-Go so it could be an option. Or
Change Deadline (with early TC, there should be something testable
Spins guys, any thoughts?
I think that sign off should be before Change Deadline without a clear
RC day, at that point there may be another TC if we still have
blockers, but RC should be imminent. it gives about as much time as
possible. Spins really need to be tested and made sure they work for
TC's as that's when its easiest to get fixes in. Once RC1 is requested
there is no guarantee there will be another RC request. I think once or
twice we have shipped RC1.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----