On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 13:56 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 07/10/2013 12:36 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Plus, in relation to this - the llvmpipe issue brings up that one of
> the 'release blocking desktops' *does not work*. This would, by definition,
> block the release unless we intend to have different criteria for ARM as a
> primary arch.
Then we should remove the default label and "release blocking
desktop(s)" entirely concept with it.
It's far outdated anyway and relic from the past.
Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to
provide the necessary QA/Releng resources from their sub-community
( if no such thing the relevant party needs to build one ) while we QA
and Releng focus our available resources on the components that
everyone in the whole distribution use and provide the necessary sub
community with the assistance in relation to QA and Releng.
I'm afraid I can't agree. I like the simplicity of the model you're
proposing, but from a practical point of view, there is still a commonly
held perception that there is a 'product' called Fedora which is
basically composed of what you get if you go to
get.fedoraproject.org,
download one of the things we push at you there, and install it.
Practically speaking, I believe we have to QA that 'thing called Fedora'
as a whole. I don't think your model quite matches what people perceive
Fedora to be.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net