Fedora release criteria completely revised

[John Poelstra]

On 12/11/2009 08:52 AM, James Laska wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 08:20 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:53 -0500, James Laska wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure if this has been raised yet, but are we specifying when in the
>>> release that packages should be signed with a valid signature?  I
>>> believe packages are signed at all release milestones, but I'd like to
>>> clear up that assumption.
>>
>> Do you think that's a criteria issue, i.e. something to which there's an
>> innate correct answer which can be defined and which shouldn't change?
>> I'd think of it more as a process issue, but IMBW.
>
> Yeah, that's my question ... is there an assumption that all packages
> will be signed?  Does this assumption need to be validated?
>
> Looking at our current test plans for the release, I don't see anything
> where we confirm that packages are properly signed.  Should we be
> testing this, and if so ... does it map back to a specific release
> criteria?
>

The way we've approached the Release Criteria is that we are only 
capturing things that *must* be present to ship.

If the answer to the question: "If for whatever reason, packages were 
not signed with the correct key (or at all), would we delay shipping the 
release until they were signed correctly?"... is "yes" then I think it 
should be added to the criteria.

I would propose the answer should be "yes, all packages must be properly 
signed." I'm sure people will let me know if they disagree ;-)

John