Release criteria updates: genericizing!

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 14:14 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> > > I dunno, that was just the wording I came up with at the time, I
> > > think :) If we can clarify it, that's all to the good.
> > 
> > Is it better/same/worse as follows ...
> > 
> >       * The final branded release notes from the Documentation team
> must
> >         be present on ISO media and the appropriately versioned
> generic
> >         release notes must be available in the online release
> repository
> >       * A fedora-release package containing the correct names,
> >         information and repository configuration for a final Fedora
> >         release (as opposed to a pre-release) must be present on ISO
> >         media while the appropriately versioned generic-release
> package
> >         must be available in the online release repository </run-on>
> 
> Any opinions on the above phrasing? 

Discussed with Adam on #fedora-qa.  I updated the wiki accordingly.

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_16_Final_Release_Criteria&action=historysubmit&diff=244437&oldid=244428

Thanks,
James

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110706/cbb1bf31/attachment.bin