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

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 08/15/2013 03:16 PM, drago01 wrote:
> 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 ...
>

I should clarify what I'm talking about is the discussion of 
"officially" supporting upgrading while you probably mean it has been 
technically possible which has indeed been available for a long time.

JBG