[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 Final Release Declared GOLD!

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Nov 4 18:53:30 UTC 2011

On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 09:37 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 23:17:21 -0700,
>   Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It'd be great if we can work with the anaconda team closely to try and
> > get involved all along the line in the UI rewrite stuff, and see if that
> > can reduce the pressure around release times - let's put that on the
> > table for the next meeting. But it might still turn out to be a tough
> > one. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas at all, please do contribute
> > them! The more thinking the better.
> Yeah, I think early testing will be good there. (Unfortunately, that's
> not an area I am good at helping with as I mostly do yum upgrades and
> run rawhide/branched continuously rather than do lots of test installs.)
> It might be useful to run through the test matrices at some other points in
> the release cycle to get a heads up on potential blockers with more time
> on them. It seemed this release we were in crisis mode for a lot of the
> blockers.

We tried to do that to some extent in 16 cycle by moving the TC date one
week up for both Beta and Final, and I think that worked pretty well. I
also noted on the retrospective that we should avoid the trap of
focusing too strongly on the blocker bugs we find _first_, and keep
testing while those are getting fixed to find any others that are

> > Yeah, agreed. I don't think there's any especial need for the go/no-go
> > to be an entire day ahead of the release readiness meeting, in all
> > honesty - it seems to work fine simply to do it earlier the same day. So
> > do you think it'd be alright to suggest that as a change for the F17 and
> > beyond scheduling? Every time we've decided the delay the go/no-go
> > decision, that choice in itself hasn't caused any problems, as far as
> > I'm aware. It simply gives us more time for validation, which is never a
> > bad thing...
> I am concerned with the process as executed not matching the documentation.
> I'd just like to see a change codified that either allows moving the Go /
> No-Go meeting when appropriate or just schedule it closer to the
> readiness meeting.

Yup, indeed, bending process is a bad habit to get into. We can bring it
up at the meeting and if everyone's happy with moving go/no-go back I
can talk to Robyn and have the 17 schedule changed.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list