----- Original Message -----
On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 10:21 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
> > 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
From my experience, many misunderstandings comes from "release is
Tuesday, it will be ready on Monday". So even one milestone later;-) The
good thing is, Adam is usually sending email to devel list as reminder.
And it actually follows what you proposed :). Asking devels to fix stuff
by Tuesday, info we would have to slip in case it's not etc. Just it
never was strict deadline and many times it was in the way - hey, we're
so close, let's try to be crazy heroes, we can make it. So yes, we
already do almost what you proposed, just it's not enforced. If there's
demand for it, I'm not against it. It's a bit less flexible but can
lower pressure on many folks (but prolong release -> more pressure but
spread in more time).
> 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.
devel mailing list
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct