Release criteria: virtualization tweak

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:41 +0100, agraham wrote:
> On 09/08/2011 08:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 19:42 +0100, agraham wrote:
> >
> >>> It's intentionally ambiguous: I try to write the criteria as generically
> >>> as possible. This ensures we don't have to rewrite them just because we
> >>> change tack. (Remember, our 'preferred virt technology' was Xen not so
> >>> long ago; if we'd had hardcoded criteria that stated 'Xen' at that
> >>> point, we'd have had to rewrite them to say 'KVM'). I think it's just
> >>> more correct, too: our intent is not that 'KVM should work', really, our
> >>> intent really is 'whatever Fedora currently reckons is The Good Stuff
> >>> should work'. Same reason the criteria say 'the installer' and not
> >>> 'anaconda', and 'refer generically to 'release-blocking desktops', not
> >>> 'GNOME and KDE'.
> >>
> >> I fully understand where you are coming from, when it comes to policy
> >> statements, they usually refer to now and possibly the past, but not
> >> future. because policies usually needs to change as you state.
> >
> > sure, but it certainly helps to write them in such a way that they'll
> > need to change as little as possible. it's already enough work
> > maintaining the criteria :/
> 
> Regarding the term "Releases", what does this mean?
> 
> Does it include all versions of the Live CDs/USB images as well as the 
> normal DVDs images.
> 
> i.e. anything on the download page (for a specific version + n-1), I'm 
> just thinking of what actually needs to be tested in order to meet the 
> policy.

It's somewhat flexible. It's very hard to encode absolutely
_everything_, though I'm in favour of trying. =) It's kinda striking a
balance between sufficiently comprehensive criteria, and not having them
look like the EU legal code...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net