Greetings!
In on week, on 2018-08-14, we will reach Fedora 29 Change Checkpoint:Completion deadline (testable) [1].
At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by default, it must be enabled at Change Completion deadline as well.
Change tracking bug should be set to the MODIFIED state to indicate it achieved completeness.
Incomplete and non testable Changes [3] will be reported to FESCo on 2018-Aug-23 meeting. Contingency plans for System Wide Changes in case of serious doubts regarding Change completion, will be activated.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/ChangeSet [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGN...
On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 10:42 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
Greetings!
In on week, on 2018-08-14, we will reach Fedora 29 Change Checkpoint:Completion deadline (testable) [1].
At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by default, it must be enabled at Change Completion deadline as well.
Change tracking bug should be set to the MODIFIED state to indicate it achieved completeness.
I'm taking a look through these and updating ones that clearly *are* testable already to MODIFIED.
One thing I noted, it seems odd that *both* these changes appear in the list of 'active' changes for F29:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551329 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS230
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596190 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS231
surely the BINUTILS231 change supersedes the BINUTILS230 change? Shouldn't the bugs be duped and the wiki pages cleaned up somehow?
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 11:19:30AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 10:42 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
Greetings!
In on week, on 2018-08-14, we will reach Fedora 29 Change Checkpoint:Completion deadline (testable) [1].
At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by default, it must be enabled at Change Completion deadline as well.
Change tracking bug should be set to the MODIFIED state to indicate it achieved completeness.
I'm taking a look through these and updating ones that clearly *are* testable already to MODIFIED.
One thing I noted, it seems odd that *both* these changes appear in the list of 'active' changes for F29:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551329 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS230
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596190 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS231
surely the BINUTILS231 change supersedes the BINUTILS230 change? Shouldn't the bugs be duped and the wiki pages cleaned up somehow?
When BINUTILS231 was accepted, we said that it'll automatically replace BINUTILS230, if it goes in. Since it did go in, BINUTILS230 should just be closed as "replaced by BINUTILS230" to avoid confusing users.
Zbyszek
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:19 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I'm taking a look through these and updating ones that clearly *are* testable already to MODIFIED.
You're awesome!
surely the BINUTILS231 change supersedes the BINUTILS230 change? Shouldn't the bugs be duped and the wiki pages cleaned up somehow?
Yes, good catch. Looks like Nick Clifton closed the binutils 2.30 BZ already and I just edited the wiki page's category so that it won't get caught up in the scripts again.