On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Adam Williamson <awill...@redhat.com>wrote:
> So just a couple of notes on the proposal: > > It's phrased in very technical terms here - probably a wise choice - but I > think it's worth noting one of the angles we took in discussing it in > person at FUDCon is that it has the potential to contribute to the more > general idea of making Fedora more flexible in terms of what we can build > and release. It has the effect of giving us a defined 'core' of > functionality on top of which we could build various things. It would only > be one piece of a larger puzzle here - things like better image building > tools and Formulas are part of the same puzzle - but it's an element I was > quite interested in. > > Also, I recall the in-person discussions making it clearer that this plan > is pretty strongly dependent on automated testing. This has been discussed > somewhat in the follow-ups, but to make sure it's very clear, my reading of > the proposal is that it would require substantially more sophisticated and > reliable tests than we currently have in AutoQA, and we'd need development > resources - either RH paid, or volunteer - to build AutoQA up to the point > where it could support this plan without causing unnecessary disruption. > > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora > http://www.happyassassin.net > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/devel<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > Are there any records of these FUDCon discussions? Creating defined core of functionality seems like it could solve several problems. I would be curious as to what ideas we proposed on that. -- Mark Bidewell http://www.linkedin.com/in/markbidewell
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
