Release criteria updates: genericizing!
jlaska at redhat.com
Wed Jul 6 18:32:55 UTC 2011
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
> > be present on ISO media and the appropriately versioned
> > release notes must be available in the online release
> > * 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
> > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110706/cbb1bf31/attachment.bin
More information about the test