2011/5/17 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>:
On 05/18/2011 12:21 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> FESCo, and I believe spins sig also believes it should have a say.
>
> QA does indeed provide services to the entire distro, but our
> responsibility is to provide the best QA we can for the things the
> project considers a) vital and then b) important, not to_define_ what
> the project considers vital and important. We can provide advice - for
> instance, if FESCo were to propose that every desktop ever could block
> the release, we might advise that it was likely to be very difficult to
> provide reasonable testing coverage for that - but we don't ultimately
> have the right to take the decision. If FESCo ultimately chose to go
> ahead anyway it would be our responsibility to do the best job we could
> with QAing every desktop in Fedora, but when we inevitably failed, we
> could point out that we'd told 'em so. =)
The project has long outgrown officially supporting and shipping a
single desktop ( which is good ) however various processes like the
design team and release engineering and us ( QA even thou I believe of
those we are the once that are best prepared for it ) are falling behind
the growth of the project which is bad.
Could you drop this please. It is neither helpful or useful to the project.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren