Proposed release criteria revisions

[James Laska]

On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 12:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:27 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> 
> > > "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
> > > installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any
> > > official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either
> > > via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded
> > > system must meet all release criteria"
> > 
> > Does it make sense to phase this criteria in?  Meaning, it would be
> > nice-to-have this release, and blocker material next release?  I'd have
> > to see what testing results, and want to see if the desktop@ team also
> > agrees, since they'll be responsible for resolving these issues.
> 
> I didn't really see it as a change, more a clarification. In practice
> we've always treated it as 'upgrades have to work' in the sense that the
> upgraded system must actually run, not just 'the upgrade process must
> complete'. So I'm not sure it's necessary.

True true, I was thinking more about some of the nuances with applets,
icons and all applications run without error on the upgraded system.
But you clearly limited this to a @default installation, so I think that
covers my concerns about this covering *too* many failures we (Fedora)
couldn't possibly respond to in a timely manner.

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/20110329/53e6e746/attachment.bin