2007-11-14 QA Meeting Recap
John Poelstra
poelstra at redhat.com
Thu Nov 15 03:54:47 UTC 2007
shrek-m at gmx.de wrote:
> John Poelstra schrieb:
>
> ---- snip ----
> 5) Bugs previously opened against test releases will also be merged into
> the released version. For example:
> \
> FC6Test1 \
> FC6Test2 | ===> 6
> FC6Test3 /
> FC6 /
>
>
>
> think about what kind of bugs and what amount you will find under the
> final/stable release version which was rawhide and not the final release.
>
> sorry but
> fc6test1 (+ devel updates)
> fc6test2 (+ devel updates)
> fc6test3 (+ devel updates)
> == rawhide and not 6
>
I agree there isn't 100% correct. However, that is 2 releases ago...
those bugs are more likely to be associated with FC6 then with today's
rawhide. I believe calling them 6 makes more sense. It also makes them
easier to track down as likely candidates for flipping to
"NEEDINFO--please test against current release" and auto-closing if
there is no response [1].
>
> f9alpha (+ devel updates)
> f9beta (+ devel updates)
> f9preview (+ devel updates)
> == rawhide and not 9
Agreed
> f9_the_last_releasecandidate == 9
Agreed
[1] All of the above raises the question of what kind of processes we
should have around managing and triaging open bugs. I don't believe
what is proposed above affects the future so much as cleans up the past.
Should all the open bugs that happen to have a version of "rawhide" at
the GA of Fedora 9 stay "rawhide" forever, or should they be mass-moved
to "9"?
What do people think?
John
More information about the test
mailing list