Fedora release criteria completely revised

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 12:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 06:38 +0500, A. Mani wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria
> > 
> > My comments:
> > 
> > "10. #  The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade
> > installation from a clean, fully updated default installation of the
> > previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to
> > the installer manually "
> > 
> > It should be from at least ten other rawhide stages too.
> > Why is it so weak?
> 
> That's all we can commit to test at present. Also, upgrading from
> Rawhide is something we care far less about; after all, all Rawhide
> installations should be disposable, so one not being upgradeable really
> isn't a big deal.
> 
> > Criteria 11 of beta should figure in alpha.  The rescue feature should
> > be absolutely robust.
> 
> That's a possibility - James, John, what do you guys think of this?
> Anyone else?

Good catch, I don't have any objections.  I've moved the rescue mode
criteria to the previous milestone.  So for Alpha, rescue mode will
detect and mount default installations.  For Beta, rescue mode will
detect and mount more complex installation scenarios.

> > Criteria 15 can be more specific. Which desktops?.. all of Kde, Xfce and Gnome
> 
> It specifically says 'default desktop' and that is all it's intended to
> cover. See John Poelstra's post to -devel-list about the difficulties of
> covering multiple desktops in the criteria.

+1 to John's thread ... we'll tackle this in a future update.

> > Software Compilation from source and important rpm-src packages should
> > be ok at beta stage.
> 
> that sounds like a good idea too - again, any other opinions on this?

Hmm, no strong opinions from me.  If such a criteria existed, what would
be the verification steps to ensure it is upheld?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20091210/3f6a5fc1/attachment.sig>