Release criteria updates: desktop question

[Stephen John Smoogen]

2011/5/17 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com>:
> On 05/18/2011 12:21 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> FESCo, and I believe spins sig also believes it should have a say.
>>
>> QA does indeed provide services to the entire distro, but our
>> responsibility is to provide the best QA we can for the things the
>> project considers a) vital and then b) important, not to_define_  what
>> the project considers vital and important. We can provide advice - for
>> instance, if FESCo were to propose that every desktop ever could block
>> the release, we might advise that it was likely to be very difficult to
>> provide reasonable testing coverage for that - but we don't ultimately
>> have the right to take the decision. If FESCo ultimately chose to go
>> ahead anyway it would be our responsibility to do the best job we could
>> with QAing every desktop in Fedora, but when we inevitably failed, we
>> could point out that we'd told 'em so. =)
>
> The project has long outgrown officially supporting and shipping a
> single desktop ( which is good ) however various processes like the
> design team and release engineering and us ( QA even thou I believe of
> those we are the once that are best prepared for it ) are falling behind
> the growth of the project which is bad.

Could you drop this please. It is neither helpful or useful to the project.




-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren