On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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" doesn't
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).
1: Ok I didn't check the data but my impression is that most blocker
bugs are in that area I might be wrong though ... but the data is
available to check that.