Release criteria draft revised again

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 18 June 2014 15:23, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 20:01 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 17 June 2014 18:35, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:48 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > > On 17 June 2014 16:02, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've revised the release criteria draft again, with reference to
> the
> > > > > useful discussions both on-list and at this morning's meeting:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_server_release_criteria
> > > > >
> > > > > I added the firewall exception for the Cockpit web interface,
> clarified
> > > > > the issue about role deployment "at install time", and added new
> > > > > criteria for the cockpit management interface to be running OOTB
> and
> > > for
> > > > > roles to meet their "functional requirements, as defined in their
> role
> > > > > specification documents" - role specification documents being
> something
> > > > > I invented out of my ass at the meeting this morning. View that
> one as
> > > a
> > > > > trial balloon. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > As always, thoughts / comments welcome!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK. First of all, where could I 'test' any of these things on a
> Fedora 20
> > > > system.
> > >
> > > Well, that would be pointless. We're building a new product, called
> > > Fedora Server. That's kind of the whole point. We already have release
> > > criteria that are more or less scope-appropriate for the product called
> > > "Fedora 20" - they're the Fedora 20 Release Criteria, which we used to
> > > validate the Fedora 20 release.
> > >
> > >
> > That is not what I meant. I am sorry I am not communicating well and not
> > being helpful here. I have seen the links and such but they are in the
> > words on a white board. There are ~60 days before the alpha+2 weeks and I
> > wanted to see what code was written and possibly set it up against Fed 20
> > (as Fedora 21/Rawhide may not be the best to test against as its
> changing)
> > so I could see if the draft looked spot on or if it was too little or too
> > much. That was all.
> >
> > Again my apologies
>
> Sorry for sounding harsh, I was just a bit frustrated. So, let me try
> again: if you have concerns about our ability to implement the Server
> tech specs within the current F21 timeframe, well, that's a thing. The
> Server WG actually has similar concerns, which is why it asked FESCo for
> a schedule modification recently, but that's not exactly how it came
> out.
>
>
My concerns in relationship to your document was if

Role deployment
Role service query
Role firewall configuration
Role functional requirements

were overly or underly ambitious for what could be met. I did not
communicate that well and I can understand the frustration as negative
nancies steal the life out of everything.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/attachments/20140618/716d1063/attachment-0001.html>