Should a working fedup in Fedora N's stable repository be a release criterion for N+1?

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 20:37 +0100, Markus Mayer wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:22 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > OK, so I'll re-ask my original question.  Fedora 20 was released with
> > a broken update path from F19.  Should the release criteria be
> > amended?  This particular issue would have been avoided if F19's fedup
> > were frozen along with F20 and if all of the destined-for-stable
> > versions were tested together as a release criterion.
> >
> > --Andy
> >
> 
> I'am definitely in favor of this. A working upgrade is as important as a 
> working installation.
> 
> A suggest that you create a draft of the release criteria change and 
> fill a FESCO ticket.

This is not the appropriate procedure. Not everything has to go through
FESCo, you know :) I've just checked and it's not really explained on
the pages, so I'll see if we can fix that, but in the ordinary course of
events, criteria proposals and changes go through QA, on test@ list. You
could appeal from there to FESCo if you felt something was seriously
wrong, of course, but it is not the first port of call.

Not to mention, the release criterion is the one thing that's clearly
*correct*. It's the test procedures and upgrading documentation that
need tweaking.

Note, all the stuff about updates-testing is a holdover from the early
days of fedup in the 17->18 days, when we were iterating it very fast
and testing what was in 'updates' was uninteresting. It looks like
no-one went back and fixed that up later.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net