[Fwd: Updated Beta Upgrade Requirements]

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 09:53 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 17:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 11:21 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > 
> > > This is somewhat hard to read as it doesn't diff against the previous
> > > text. A mail which just specified what you actually intend to change, or
> > > a sandbox wiki page with a revision history that provides the diff,
> > > would be most useful.
> > > --
> > > Adam Williamson
> > > Fedora QA Community Monkey
> > > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> > > http://www.happyassassin.net
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Perhaps
> > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria_sgallagh_draft&diff=390666&oldid=390661
> > will work better?
> 
> As this requirement is coming pretty late before Beta, do we have development
> commitment to do required changes in fedup? I know Stephen, you were involved -
> sorry, I didn't catch all the discussion - how does it look like? Do we have any
> plan? I think it would be worth bringing it to today's FESCo meeting and I
> understand how products upgrades fits into what we do in Fedora 21. So we
> could be granted bigger slip.

From the conversation I had with Kalev Lember and Will Woods, it doesn't
seem like an enormous amount of work to get into the Beta, but I don't
know at the moment how much progress has been made on that front. I'll
check with Will and see.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20141008/274060d6/attachment.sig>