Proposed release criteria revisions

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Thu Mar 17 20:16:01 UTC 2011

Hey, all. I'm currently poking at the release criteria to try and
address a few issues that have come up during blocker meetings. I have
drafts of revised versions of all three pages up:

The biggest change is to add this paragraph to the preamble of all three

"There may be times where a requirement is unmet only in a particular
configuration, such as with some keyboard layouts but not others, or if
a particular character is used in a username, password or passphrase. In
such cases, the release team should use their judgment and refer to
precedent to determine whether or not the issue should be considered to
block the release. They should consider the number of users likely to be
affected by the issue, the severity of the case when the issue is
encountered, and the ease or otherwise with which the issue can be
avoided by both informed and uninformed users. "

This is the best approach I could come up with for dealing with the
various cases that have come up where login or encrypted partitions or
something is broken with certain keymaps or characters; it didn't seem
to quite work to add a specific criterion for 'all non-US keymaps' or
something, it seems rather better to address it as a general principle.
Comments on this approach welcome!

The other changes:

Alpha: Actually account for firstboot, which we completely ignored until
now. The criterion about 'booting to a working desktop' was split into
two and now covers firstboot. I also explicitly called out encryption
here, and tweaked the language about 'user intervention' to 'unintended
user intervention'.

Beta: Significantly, add a criterion requiring that install methods
supposed to be unattended must actually run unattended: they shouldn't
prompt for anything. Aside from that, same change as for Alpha regarding
'user intervention', tweak the criterion regarding panel elements to
also disallow them being completely non-functional (this lines up better
with the actual test), and add a (if any) disclaimer to the bit about
options for shutting down and restarting the system (since Shell doesn't
have all of those).

Final: tweak the Applications stuff a bit for shell, and clarify #12 a
little. Improve the wording of #14 slightly.

Can everyone let me know what they think of these changes? Thanks!

There may be a few more coming later as I go through the blocker meeting
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the test mailing list