[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Alpha checkpoint

On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:01 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 09:18 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 23:55 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote:
> > >  I propose that we *do* have it as default for the Alpha and Beta and if
> > > it comes to a point, similar to the F10 trials, where it's still too
> > > rough, that we can simply fallback (again) to Pidgin for another
> > > release. I sincerely hope that this is not the case, though. ;-)
> > 
> > If you're going to do that again, you're really going to need to nail
> > down a set of criteria for "pass" vs "fail" so that QA et al can better
> > help make that judgment call.  It was entirely too wishy washy last time
> > around.
> For starters, it would be nice if the people who rejected it the last
> time around would log their reasons for doing so on the feature page...

I've added some of my concerns to the discussion page, but I'll try to
fleshed it out a bit more this weekend.

Brian Pepple <bpepple fedoraproject org>

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]