RFC: Feature process improvements

[Marcela Maslanova]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com>
> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:32:35 AM
> Subject: Re: RFC: Feature process improvements
> 
> On 11/28/2012 08:08 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Hello,
> > this proposal was recently linked in various places, so let's
> > formally
> > introduce it:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Feature_process
> >
> > This an incremental change, not a major overhaul designed to solve
> > all problems.
> >
> > The benefits expected from this proposal:
> > * Making proposed features more visible to Fedora contributors, and
> > making it easier for Fedora contributors to discuss the feature
> > before
> > FESCo votes on it.
> > * Simplifying the process for self-contained features (e.g.
> > individual
> > package version upgrades)
> > * Getting FESCo more involved in scheduling and testing of features
> > with large impact on the rest of the distribution or schedule.
> > * Making sure some frequently forgotten-about items, like rel-eng
> > impact, are included in the feature proposal.
> >
> > For details, please see the proposal at the above-mentioned link.
> >      Marcela Mašláňová, Tomáš Mráz, Jaroslav Řezník, Miloslav Trmač
> 
> Lacks clarification on what's considered an feature.
> 
> Arguably it should be mandatory for feature owners to provide or work
> with the documentation and or marketing communities documenting and
> publishing what benefits changes their feature brings to
> users/community/the distribution in whole etc.
> 
> it's just absurd having us ( QA ) adjusting release criteria while we
> are trying to follow it so feature that might affect the current
> release
> criteria and or critical components will need to be approved by QA
> before alpha so we can but not be limited to making the necessary
> changes to the release criteria in due time and make sure proper
> testing
> takes place and each approved feature arguably should have associated
> test day with it ( if relevant ).
> 
> Will it still be optional to participate in the feature process?
> 
> JBG

The discussion about features on f-d could help QA to focus on important
changes, don't you think? Or would you prefer something else what
could help QA?
I'd rather see feature process for wide system changes mandatory. People
are complaining about features, which went terribly wrong. I don't see
any other way than control their progress better and help feature owners
with stuff around (broken dependencies etc.).
Also in the past some features weren't announced at all and than later
added because they didn't work well. For example upgrade of Java (I'm not
picking on Java, just remember this one, but there were surely more).
-- 
Marcela