Small amendment to go/no-go determination process

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Wed Aug 10 21:12:18 UTC 2011

Hey, folks. So a few months back we discussed the issue of QA go/no-go
votes, and agreed that we could simply prescribe a formula for the vote
and remove any element of subjectiveness from it, which would mean it
wouldn't really matter who cast QA's 'vote' at the meeting, and I edited to reflect this. I've
just realized that the definition was a bit incomplete, though: it
considers whether or not there are accepted blockers, but doesn't
consider whether or not validation testing is complete. Obviously, the
appropriate set of validation tests has to be complete for us to vote
'yes'. So I've just amended the page to read:

"QA approves the release if all validation tests appropriate to the
release phase (Alpha, Beta or Final) have been performed and there are
no accepted blocker bugs that are unaddressed in the candidate compose.
QA does not approve the release if there are any accepted blocker bugs
that are unaddressed in the candidate compose or if validation testing
is incomplete."

I think it's a pretty obvious change, but if anyone has worries about
it, speak up!
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | adamwfedora

More information about the test mailing list