Proposing new dual booting release criteria

Fri Aug 29 08:08:51 UTC 2014

On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 13:52 +0200, François Cami wrote:

> All fine, except that we should maybe feel more than a little
> concerned about release criteria wordered with *must* and not
> *should*, when the dependency is a (rather large) piece of proprietary
> software we have no control of and possibly no access to.

A criterion which says "should" is effectively meaningless, if we're
taking a strict RFC-ish interpretation of those terms. If it's not a
requirement but a 'it would be nice', it's not a criterion. (I used to
kinda let it ride, but I tried to tidy them up to basically always say
'must' in the F21 cleanup).
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net