Fedora 13 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting: 2010-03-04 @ 01:00 UTC Recap
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 21:42:20 UTC 2010
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:05:29PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > To give a practical example, if 'KDE X.Y with shiny new IM client' is
> > > listed as a feature for the Alpha, we'd say the freeze policy requires
> > > the new IM client should actually be present in the Alpha package set.
> > > But we wouldn't say the release should be blocked if there's a bug which
> > > causes it to fail to launch, even though this arguably makes it 'not
> > > testable'. The theory is that there's no point holding the Alpha release
> > > to fix something we can fix equally well in post-Alpha updates, since
> > > there's no net benefit to anyone. But we should probably discuss this in
> > > more detail.
> > >
> > Big +1 to that. I don't care too much what the criteria is as long as its
> > consistent and doesn't put package maintainers in an impossible position wrt
> > getting their development done and into the next release.
> OK, cool. How do you want to move this forward?
I think Jesse was the creator of the Alpha Freeze Policy. So maybe it's
just something for releng and QA to hash out a definition of testable or
wording that better describes the current situation?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100304/14a9bc29/attachment.bin
More information about the devel