Proposed release criteria revisions

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:46 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> 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.

yeah, it doesn't mean that we should block the release if any
non-default bit of anyone's random upgrade test fails.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net