On 6 March 2010 02:50, Adam Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can
Adam Williamson wrote:
We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a
network connection, and install updates'. That's what the
On 4 March 2010 19:59, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I think we
really need to be more conservative about what version of our default
updating tool we include in our releases (and in fact pushing PackageKit 0.6
as a post-release enhancement update once the issues with it are
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 21:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I did explicitly explain to you and the other desktop SIGs at the start
of the F13 cycle that, because we just hadn't had time to discuss all
the thorny implications of the question, the desktop criteria would be
James Laska wrote:
Quality isn't something you staff and hope they cover all your testing
needs. Quality practices are expected of everyone at all stages of the
process. In the QA team, we work to provide a framework and guidelines
so people interested in making a difference have an
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
We should change or refine the Freeze Policy page then. Having different
definitions of what is required for alpha to go out and what can go in
after
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it,
James Laska wrote:
Representatives from Fedora QA, Rel-Eng and Development met on IRC to
review determine whether the Fedora 13 Alpha release criteria [1] have
been met. The team agreed that the Alpha criteria have been met, and to
proceed with releasing F-13-Alpha-RC4.
Oh, because a KDE
On 4 March 2010 13:17, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
But of course the GNOME spin works (for some definition of works, they
also have a PackageKit issue which was declared not a blocker –
For the record, it is a yum-langpacks issue.
If you're running an up to date gnome-packagekit
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 4 March 2010 13:17, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
But of course the GNOME spin works (for some definition of works, they
also have a PackageKit issue which was declared not a blocker –
For the record, it is a yum-langpacks issue.
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
James Laska wrote:
Representatives from Fedora QA, Rel-Eng and Development met on IRC to
review determine whether the Fedora 13 Alpha release criteria [1] have
been met. The team agreed that the Alpha criteria have been met, and to
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
On one hand we have people complaining about the quality of updates, on the
other hand we're happily releasing crap we know is broken.
It's an *alpha*. 'Crap we know is
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:22 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
On one hand we have people complaining about the quality of updates, on
the
other hand we're happily
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I'm not particularly sold on the definition in the freeze policy, and
honestly I suspect it's been honored much more in the breach than in the
observance. I'd be very surprised if all planned features of a given
release have ever
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:05:29PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
To give a practical example, if 'KDE X.Y with shiny new IM client' is
listed as a feature for the Alpha, we'd say the freeze policy requires
the new IM client
Adam Williamson wrote:
I did explicitly explain to you and the other desktop SIGs at the start
of the F13 cycle that, because we just hadn't had time to discuss all
the thorny implications of the question, the desktop criteria would be
considered only with regards to the default desktop. Which
17 matches
Mail list logo
