Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2013-08-14)

[drago01]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:02 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 02:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 01:02:42PM -0400, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>
>>> Well whomever choose to decide that we "support" upgrades in the
>>> first place bypassed the QA community entirely in making that
>>> decision as well as to which tool is "preferred","supported" or
>>> "recommended".
>>
>> If QA is testing something other than the supported upgrade mechanism,
>> then QA should rectify that. The communication has been very clear -
>> if fedup fails to upgrade then that's considered a bug, and if any other
>> approach fails then it may not be.
>
>
>
> Our release criteria and everything we defined *after* we found out that we
> suddenly supported upgrades is solid which is not what I was saying or
> referring to.

Suddenly? They always have been "supported" that even dates back to
the Redhat Linux days ...

> Could you point me to the individual(s) and the discussion to support
> upgrades in the first place, took place so we in the QA community can
> finally see who made the decision to open that pandora box and why?

See above.