Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 07:11 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/07/2009 10:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: In https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria under Beta Release Requirements, Item 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. Does this mean that the Fedora officially Supports upgrades now? If so dont application need to be backwards compatible and QA and Doc team be noted if they are not. If it's not officially supported why is it in the Beta Release Requirements? As far as I know ... upgrades are supported. However, we can adjust if that statement changes. http://docs.fedoraproject.org/install-guide/f12/en-US/html/ch-upgrade-x86.html Thanks, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
Hi. On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:11:52 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: manually. Does this mean that the Fedora officially Supports upgrades now? Were upgraded installs not always supported, as long as the upgrade did not take place within the running system? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 14:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating), anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an earlier stage). The new structure is based around a general page and specific pages for the Fedora 13 Alpha, Beta and Final releases (which have been written generically so they can easily be converted into pages for F14 and all future releases just by copying and pasting). You can find the criteria here: 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 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria they should contain everything you need to know. We based most of the criteria around testing that was already being carried out but with no formal policy basis, with additional suggestions from the anaconda and desktop teams. We will follow these criteria for the Fedora 13 release process. So if you can see any problems or potential trouble with any of this, please do reply and let us know! Desktop team - can you please let us know of any additional things that you would expect to be working at each point during the release cycle? Note that only things that *must* be working at each point should be listed on these pages, not nice-to-haves. You must be able to commit to the idea that, if any criterion on the page is not met, we would slip the release in question. 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. Thanks, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
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. I have 3 answers for that. 1) if we get koji autosign builds working, every official build that comes out of koji will be signed automatically 2) failing that, if we get no frozen rawhide working right, every build will be signed once we branch away from rawhide as we'll be using bodhi to manage it. 3) failing that, the builds will be signed leading up to the release milestones. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:53:40 -0500, James Laska jla...@redhat.com 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. I belive the plan is that all official koji builds are going to be signed with the same key. The key will just provide assurance that the rpms were official builds from our koji and not that they are tied to a particular release or release type. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
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. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
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? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
Adam Williamson said the following on 12/08/2009 07:12 AM Pacific Time: On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 15:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Plus, why was the KDE SIG not invited? (We had at least 4 KDE SIG folks present at FUDCon.) We had a pre-hackfest meeting for the whole FUDCon attendee list where everyone who wanted to hack on something stood up and announced what they would be hacking on. John Poelstra announced at that meeting that we would be gathering to work on the release criteria. The KDE people who were at FUDCon were at that meeting, so they were in a position to know about the work. I was running around all day telling people what we were working on, it wasn't a secret. Are you planning to ship Fedora 13 even if the KDE Live image is broken? That depends on whether you want us to or not. :) If a SIG has criteria they want to add to the list, and they can commit to fulfilling those criteria and be willing to take the responsibility of causing a release to slip if they _don't_ fulfill them, we can certainly add those to the lists. If KDE has minimum functional levels for the KDE spin that they can commit to, please do send them to this thread and we'll look at putting them in the criteria. We intentionally didn't specifically address the issue of the relative 'importance' of spins in the criteria as it's a difficult topic and one that's not really appropriate to decide in this place. The existing criteria didn't address this either - they didn't say anything about _any_ spin having to be not 'broken' before we ship - so there's no change there. This is a good clarification that we should add to the criteria page--it only speaks to requirements to release our default offering. It is also a framework to add more detail to once the Target Audience discussion is finalized. The Fedora QA process, for as long as I've been near it has focused on the default offering which has the Gnome desktop. I don't speak for the QA group, but to my knowledge Fedora QA has never officially tested or been responsible for testing any of the spins, including KDE. When I was part of the spins process it was understood that each Spins team was responsible for testing their spin. It would be a mistake to take the new release criteria pages and attempt to mold them to make them be all things to all Spins. Just as each of the public releases (Alpha, Beta, and Final) have different target audiences, so do the spins themselves. What would make sense would be for each of the Spins SIGS to copy the release criteria pages and mold their own from them. The Fedora QA Team already has enough things on their plate and they are doing a great job, but don't muddy the waters by trying to mix two target audiences into the same release criteria. John -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On Monday, 07 December 2009 at 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote: [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria 16. Automatic mounting on insertion of removable media must work It should be clarified with ... after GUI login, because it sure never worked before a user is logged in. Also it never worked when user was logged in via text console, did it? Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu Faith manages. -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:Confessions and Lamentations -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 09:19 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: Hi Adam, Looks really great in general! Thanks! One specific comment, for Final 9; I think we need a more specific definition of and subsequent login. Does that mean that you just type your username/password and look at the default desktop? This is what it was intended to mean, actually running apps I would have defined as 'login and use'. How would you suggest wording a clarification? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: This is what it was intended to mean, actually running apps I would have defined as 'login and use'. How would you suggest wording a clarification? Looking at it again, it's fairly clear that this just covers the desktop view, given criteria 12. So this looks fine, thanks! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:54 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Monday, 07 December 2009 at 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote: [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria 16. Automatic mounting on insertion of removable media must work It should be clarified with ... after GUI login, because it sure never worked before a user is logged in. Also it never worked when user was logged in via text console, did it? Good point - changed. Thanks. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
On 12/07/09 23:55, Somebody in the thread at some point said: Hi - these pages, not nice-to-haves. You must be able to commit to the idea that, if any criterion on the page is not met, we would slip the release in question. I think it's great you guys are looking to increase Quality-with-a-capital-Q. ''9 There must be no SELinux 'AVC: denied' messages or abrt crash notifications on initial boot and subsequent login'' https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria It might be wise to specify on what particular set of test machines or platforms you want to see not abrt stuff from. Because current F12 kernels kill a 4-core box here and iwlagn gives abrt warnings on this laptop, but it's still otherwise fine as a released kernel. It's not realistic to hold a release until the kernel never crashes on any platform. -Andy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
Adam Williamson wrote: During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating), anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an earlier stage). So once again things get decided by a small group of people in an in-person meeting and whoever didn't happen to be at the right place at the right time only gets to know the final decision after the fact? :-( I've complained many times about this lack of transparency and I'll continue to do so. Plus, why was the KDE SIG not invited? (We had at least 4 KDE SIG folks present at FUDCon.) Are you planning to ship Fedora 13 even if the KDE Live image is broken? Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised
Hi Adam, Looks really great in general! One specific comment, for Final 9; I think we need a more specific definition of and subsequent login. Does that mean that you just type your username/password and look at the default desktop? Are we scoping in any specific apps (firefox?) Under any specific use cases (websites, random plugins?). Any other apps? (I see just now someone else commented on this specific criteria, but instead asking about hardware). My take is we should just scope it to critpath (i.e. enough of the desktop to run packagekit), and have some sort of separate criteria/process for applications. On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating), anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an earlier stage). The new structure is based around a general page and specific pages for the Fedora 13 Alpha, Beta and Final releases (which have been written generically so they can easily be converted into pages for F14 and all future releases just by copying and pasting). You can find the criteria here: 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 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria they should contain everything you need to know. We based most of the criteria around testing that was already being carried out but with no formal policy basis, with additional suggestions from the anaconda and desktop teams. We will follow these criteria for the Fedora 13 release process. So if you can see any problems or potential trouble with any of this, please do reply and let us know! Desktop team - can you please let us know of any additional things that you would expect to be working at each point during the release cycle? Note that only things that *must* be working at each point should be listed on these pages, not nice-to-haves. You must be able to commit to the idea that, if any criterion on the page is not met, we would slip the release in question. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Fedora release criteria completely revised
During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating), anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an earlier stage). The new structure is based around a general page and specific pages for the Fedora 13 Alpha, Beta and Final releases (which have been written generically so they can easily be converted into pages for F14 and all future releases just by copying and pasting). You can find the criteria here: 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 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria they should contain everything you need to know. We based most of the criteria around testing that was already being carried out but with no formal policy basis, with additional suggestions from the anaconda and desktop teams. We will follow these criteria for the Fedora 13 release process. So if you can see any problems or potential trouble with any of this, please do reply and let us know! Desktop team - can you please let us know of any additional things that you would expect to be working at each point during the release cycle? Note that only things that *must* be working at each point should be listed on these pages, not nice-to-haves. You must be able to commit to the idea that, if any criterion on the page is not met, we would slip the release in question. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
