Release criterion proposal: upgrade methods

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 20:02 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 07:54 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:34:34PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> "It must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully
> >> updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with the
> >> 'minimal' package set or the package set for a release-blocking desktop,
> >> using any officially recommended upgrade mechanism. The upgraded system
> >> must meet all release criteria."
> > +1
> >
> > Is it worth leaving an out for corner cases? What about situations like "oh,
> > we don't support a separate /usr anymore"? What level of (possibly-crazy)
> > customization is allowed between the initial installation + updates and
> > upgrading?
> >
> 
> None we only support package selection that we have *pre* selected for 
> the user to choose from in the software spoke ( which should be the same 
> as what we hand out in the form of live media at various events thus we 
> kill two birds with one criteria ;) ).
> 
> I'm not sure how far back that release wise that support is suppose to 
> go as in do we support ( or should support since package selection might 
> differ between release ) F15 --> F18 ( GA + 1 unsupported release ) or 
> F16 -->  F18 ( Between GA releases ) or only F17 --> F18 ( latest GA 
> release  )

Only 17-18: using the definite article 'the' rather than the indefinite
article 'a' implies this. It says 'the previous stable Fedora release' -
which strictly means "only the single preceding release" - not 'a
previous stable Fedora release' or 'any previous stable Fedora release'
or anything like that. I suppose it's a distinction which is clearer to
a native speaker, admittedly, it's a bit of a fine point in English.
That's definitely why it's written that way, though.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net