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

Re: 2007-11-14 QA Meeting Recap



shrek-m gmx de wrote:
John Poelstra schrieb:

---- snip ----
5) Bugs previously opened against test releases will also be merged into
the released version. For example:
           \
   FC6Test1 \
   FC6Test2  | ===> 6
   FC6Test3 /
   FC6     /



think about what kind of bugs and what amount you will find under the
final/stable release version which was rawhide and not the final release.

sorry but
fc6test1  (+ devel updates)
fc6test2  (+ devel updates)
fc6test3  (+ devel updates)
== rawhide and not 6


I agree there isn't 100% correct. However, that is 2 releases ago... those bugs are more likely to be associated with FC6 then with today's rawhide. I believe calling them 6 makes more sense. It also makes them easier to track down as likely candidates for flipping to "NEEDINFO--please test against current release" and auto-closing if there is no response [1].


f9alpha  (+ devel updates)
f9beta  (+ devel updates)
f9preview  (+ devel updates)
== rawhide and not 9

Agreed

f9_the_last_releasecandidate  ==  9

Agreed

[1] All of the above raises the question of what kind of processes we should have around managing and triaging open bugs. I don't believe what is proposed above affects the future so much as cleans up the past.

Should all the open bugs that happen to have a version of "rawhide" at the GA of Fedora 9 stay "rawhide" forever, or should they be mass-moved to "9"?

What do people think?

John


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