Sorry for sounding harsh, I was just a bit frustrated. So, let me tryOn Tue, 2014-06-17 at 20:01 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 17 June 2014 18:35, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:48 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On 17 June 2014 16:02, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've revised the release criteria draft again, with reference to the
> > > > useful discussions both on-list and at this morning's meeting:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_server_release_criteria
> > > >
> > > > I added the firewall exception for the Cockpit web interface, clarified
> > > > the issue about role deployment "at install time", and added new
> > > > criteria for the cockpit management interface to be running OOTB and
> > for
> > > > roles to meet their "functional requirements, as defined in their role
> > > > specification documents" - role specification documents being something
> > > > I invented out of my ass at the meeting this morning. View that one as
> > a
> > > > trial balloon. :)
> > > >
> > > > As always, thoughts / comments welcome!
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK. First of all, where could I 'test' any of these things on a Fedora 20
> > > system.
> >
> > Well, that would be pointless. We're building a new product, called
> > Fedora Server. That's kind of the whole point. We already have release
> > criteria that are more or less scope-appropriate for the product called
> > "Fedora 20" - they're the Fedora 20 Release Criteria, which we used to
> > validate the Fedora 20 release.
> >
> >
> That is not what I meant. I am sorry I am not communicating well and not
> being helpful here. I have seen the links and such but they are in the
> words on a white board. There are ~60 days before the alpha+2 weeks and I
> wanted to see what code was written and possibly set it up against Fed 20
> (as Fedora 21/Rawhide may not be the best to test against as its changing)
> so I could see if the draft looked spot on or if it was too little or too
> much. That was all.
>
> Again my apologies
again: if you have concerns about our ability to implement the Server
tech specs within the current F21 timeframe, well, that's a thing. The
Server WG actually has similar concerns, which is why it asked FESCo for
a schedule modification recently, but that's not exactly how it came
out.