-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
> I don't think so.
> >I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think Dennis
> >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 I'd
> >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.
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----