Summary/Minutes for Wednesday's FESCo meeting (2012-12-05)

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:20:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 
> > * 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays  (notting, 18:50:29)
> >   * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JaroslavReznik/FedupF18Final -
> >     not updated yet  (jreznik, 18:58:15)
> 
> >   * AGREED: Do not block on fedup signature checking (not a regression)
> >     (+:7, -:0, 0:0)  (notting, 19:08:47)
> 
> how is not providing a supported way to do secure upgrade of Fedora not
> a regression? 

If you read the IRC logs and not just the summary, this was all laid out
there. It is part of the background in the bug:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877623#c13

> And what is even
> worse, the whole problem of not verifying packages on upgrade or the
> upgrade image itself is not even prominently communicated. There is
> nothing in the release notes about this:
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Release_Notes/sect-Release_Notes-Changes_for_Sysadmin.html#idm32350976

It would have been premature to put it in the release notes before this
decision was made, obviously. What would've been the point of writing it
into the release notes if FESCo had said 'this has to be fixed before we
release F18'?

You nominated the bug as requiring a release note on 29th November, then
complained that it wasn't in the release notes on 7th December -
basically you gave the docs team about a week of turnaround time, which
isn't a heck of a lot with a release with as many changes as F18.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net