On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 10:21 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> Yeah, that's a valid concern and one I'm not ignoring. I'm just
> concerned that (going by F21 Alpha and Beta) the "hero testing"
> result in avoiding a slip most of the time. In the case of Alpha, that
> was going on for a month before we finally were able to release. That's
> not fair to QA and it *certainly* doesn't make it seem like something
> new contributors would want to put themselves through.
If your goal is preventing slips you are doing it wrong (tm). Your
proposal would as Kevin said just result into *more* slips.
What we should do is to find out *why* we slip every time and address
that. The handling of the Go/NoGo meeting isn't really the problem,
you are fighting the symptoms instead of the disease.
So you'd have to 1) find out what causes us to slip so often (*cough*
anaconda *cough* ) and 2) talk to the related developers / involved
parties to find a way to solve it in a way that is acceptable to both
sides (in that example rel eng / qa / anaconda devs).
Well, that's actually one piece this is trying to address. By
publicizing and making clear that "Developers must have their packages
*submitted for stable*" at a specific time, we help those developers
schedule their time more accurately.
As I said before, part of the problem is that most developers (anaconda
included, I suspect) have been operating under the impression that as
long as the package is prepped before *Thursday*, it's all good. But
this doesn't allow time for adequate testing and discovery of remaining
1: Ok I didn't check the data but my impression is that most
bugs are in that area I might be wrong though ... but the data is
available to check that.