On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 15:43 -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
Check out the wiki pages and respond with your thoughts to this mail thread or to the associated wiki "talk" page. My hope is that we can refine and discuss these pages over the next two weeks and then meet at FUDCon in Toronto to discuss and put a framework in place for Fedora 13.
Here is some feedback on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria:
- Where are the bullet points related to upgrading from the previous release ?
- I think point 12 is a bit of a misuse of 'critical path'. There is nothing in the definition of critical path that makes regressions here more of a problem than elsewhere. And the unqualified use of the term 'regression' here is bound to be a point of contention. Was the removal of polkit-gnome-authorization a regression or a design improvement ?
- Point 16 seems to imply that data corruptor bugs need to be both fixed and documented. You probably mean: "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented". It would also be good to point out where they are supposed to be documented.
- Point 18 would be better if it just said 'All applications that are listed in the desktop menus...'. Having a desktop file is not really equivalent to showing up in the menus.
- Point 19 would be slightly better if it would not talk about 'click-through' and instead said something like 'basic functionality'; it should cover easily triggerable crashes after a few minutes of normal use, and the like.
- Point 20 needs to say that all menu items _for applications_ have icons. Also, it refers to a 'Settings' menu that we don't really have. The part about appearing twice should probably weakened to say 'unintentionally' - e.g. brasero appearing as 'Sound and Video -> Brasero Disk Burner' and as System Tools -> CD/DVD Creator' is intentional and ok, and emacs appearing in both Accessories and Programming _may_ also be intentional.
Matthias