Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
M A Young
m.a.young at durham.ac.uk
Wed Sep 15 10:27:07 UTC 2010
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote:
> I think the main point here wasn't "there are bugs #X, #Y and #Z that
> can't be fixed in time so we should revert" but a "we have a bad
> feeling / are nervous so lets revert" ... the later isn't really a
> technical decision basis and can (and here it did) piss of the one
> working on said feature.
In this case the "bad feeling" is justified, because there were too many
problems too late in the release cycle. It isn't a matter of whether all
the known bugs are fixed but whether we can be reasonably confident that
there aren't any more critical bugs that haven't been reported yet or have
been introduced by the latest updates. Maybe there should be some sort of
stability test for core features (eg. no major changes, no more than a
certain number of blocker bugs raised) after the alpha phase.
> The acceptance criteria should have been present from day one (i.e the
> day the feature was accepted) not shortly before beta (which pretty
> much limits the time to work to met them).
I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha.
Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of
the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked
More information about the devel