Release criteria draft revised again

Thu Jun 19 14:17:44 UTC 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/18/2014 05:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 June 2014 15:23, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com 
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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.

I'd say we're a little on the ambitious side, sure. That having been
said, we've got a fairly solid design plan readied, I think. I'm going
to send out a link to my proposed Role implementation shortly as well.