|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Fedora 17 schedule slips

[Posted April 6, 2012 by corbet]

From:  Robyn Bergeron <rbergero-AT-redhat.com>
To:  devel-announce-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org, test-announce-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org, Fedora Logistics List <logistics-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject:  [Test-Announce] F17 Beta to slip by an additional week.
Date:  Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:21:01 -0700
Message-ID:  <4F7E0CBD.8050100__39517.6887549043$1333660921$gmane$org@redhat.com>
Cc:  meetingminutes-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org

At the Go/No-Go meeting it was decided to slip the Beta by an additional 
week[1]. Minutes follow below.

Though the QA team was able to get through all validation testing, it 
was found that preupgrade was not functioning at an acceptable level, 
thus becoming an additional blocker which prevents us from shipping RC3, 
and necessitating the creation of an RC4.

As a result, ALL MAJOR MILESTONES, and their dependent tasks, will be 
pushed out by one week. Beta will now be looking at an expected release 
of 2012-04-17, and F17 GA is now scheduled for 2012-05-22. This is the 
second one-week slip of beta.

Adjustments to the full F17 schedule have been completed and now reflect 
the above Beta and GA dates, and high-level milestones have been updated 
as well on the Schedule wiki page[3].

We will be meeting again next Wednesday  for another Go/No-Go meeting 
(2012-04-11.)  All hail our QA pals and the anacondanistas for their 
dedication (and many, many others as well).

-Robyn

[1] Minutes: 
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-04...

     Logs: 
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-04...

[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers

[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Schedule


Minutes:

=============================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Go/No Go Continuation, Round Two, RC3, F17
=============================================================


Meeting started by rbergeron at 15:00:38 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-04...
.



Meeting summary
---------------
* Who's up  (rbergeron, 15:01:03)

* Test Results  (rbergeron, 15:11:31)
   * LINK:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_17_Bet...
     (rbergeron, 15:11:37)
   * LINK:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_17_Bet...
     (rbergeron, 15:12:11)
   * LINK:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_17_Bet...
     (rbergeron, 15:12:22)
   * AGREED: we are okay with the level of test coverage as of now on RC3
     (rbergeron, 15:16:31)

* Blockers  (rbergeron, 15:16:41)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741594  (adamw, 15:18:19)
   * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741594#c14
     (Martix, 15:18:54)
   * AGREED: 741594 does not hit any of the criteria and the cited
     scenarios are not significant enough to worry about delaying the
     beta  (adamw, 15:29:18)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810226  (adamw, 15:31:12)
   * LINK: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/9198/   (adamw,
     15:40:55)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810161  (adamw, 15:48:57)
   * AGREED: 810161 is rejected as a blocker because the impact is minor
     (it's essentially a cosmetic bug, desktop is still usable), also it
     only hits one specific virt configuration so it can at least be
     worked around. accepted as NTH and will be commonbugs'ed if we ship
     with it  (adamw, 16:13:56)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810289  (adamw, 16:14:24)
   * AGREED: #810289 is rejected as a blocker on the basis that we've
     never actually checked for low space on upgrade (and hence have
     implictly never considered it a blocking issue). anaconda will just
     try to upgrade and explode. so this isn't in fact a regression
     compared to earlier releases, and we don't have a specific
     requirement for a low space check in criteria or anywhere else.
     accepted as NTH  (adamw, 16:31:38)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810136  (adamw, 16:31:59)
   * AGREED: 810136 turns out to be a dupe of 810005, moving discussion
     (adamw, 19:45:37)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810005  (adamw, 19:45:42)
   * AGREED: 810005 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "The installer
     must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a
     clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install
     medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade
     or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must
     meet all release criteria". the known workaround has too many
     limitations to be considered 'good enough'  (adamw, 19:53:23)

* Go or no-go?  (rbergeron, 19:54:12)
   * we have a blocker.  (rbergeron, 19:54:27)
   * qa votes no-go, as do various others from engineering, fesco, pm
     (rbergeron, 19:55:18)
   * AGREED: we are no-go on F17 Beta RC3 sadly  (adamw, 19:58:27)
   * ACTION: rbergeron to update schedule.... again  (rbergeron,
     19:58:55)
   * ACTION: rbergero to send slip mail  (rbergeron, 20:00:19)
   * ACTION: tflink to do blocker meeting mail following slip notice
     (rbergeron, 20:00:38)
   * ACTION: qa heroes of awesome to get some rest plz  (rbergeron,
     20:03:09)
   * ACTION: adamw to get a hole in one  (rbergeron, 20:03:23)
   * we will re-convene tomorrow or monday  (adamw, 20:08:56)

Meeting ended at 20:08:59 UTC.




Action Items
------------
* rbergeron to update schedule.... again
* rbergero to send slip mail
* tflink to do blocker meeting mail following slip notice
* qa heroes of awesome to get some rest plz
* adamw to get a hole in one




Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* adamw
   * adamw to get a hole in one
* rbergeron
   * rbergeron to update schedule.... again
* tflink
   * tflink to do blocker meeting mail following slip notice
* **UNASSIGNED**
   * rbergero to send slip mail
   * qa heroes of awesome to get some rest plz




People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* adamw (360)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Dude! It's like 360 degrees of adamw :)
* wwoods (99)
* rbergeron (91)
* tflink (56)
* bcl (54)
* nirik (49)
* Kevin_Kofler (37)
* ajax (32)
* Martix (19)
* rdieter_work (8)
* zodbot (6)
* cpuobsessed (5)
* pjones (5)
* ianweller (4)
* kalev (3)
* spot (3)
* satellit_laptop (1)
* pschindl_ (1)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot



_______________________________________________
test-announce mailing list
test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-ann...
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

to post comments

Fedora 17 schedule slips

Posted Apr 6, 2012 16:40 UTC (Fri) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (2 responses)

It will be late, but still contain lots of bugs for your bug reporting pleasure.(Like every Fedora/RHEL pre-alpha release)
I used F16 for six months and I thought (at the time) I was good. Although network manager was annoyingly slow (even after disabling IPv6),suspend/resume was not reliable at first and LXDE had lots and lots of issues.
I liked the fact that you got Linux 3.3 really fast.
But because most of my issues weren't fixed I recently installed a _beta_ of another distro and _all_ of my issues just went away (and sofar I have found no new ones). Go figure .. sometimes switching distros makes sense and open source may really be maturing. The new installation took so little time, way less than I spend in the RH bug tracker.
Everybody may have other stories to tell, but that one is mine.

Fedora 17 schedule slips

Posted Apr 6, 2012 18:54 UTC (Fri) by LightDot (guest, #73140) [Link] (1 responses)

I wish to thank you for all the Fedora bug reports.

As bugs get reported and subsequently fixed in distributions and upstream, the entire community benefits. Look at it this way: by reporting bugs in bleeding edge distributions and directly in upstream projects, you've helped your current distribution's beta to be as stable as you say it is.

I myself have been using Red Hat (in years before the RHEL/Fedora split) and now I use Fedora/CentOS/SL/Debian for various tasks. Since all these distributions are a big part of my professional career, I always feel it's only right to participate in the community in any way I can - code and user support if time permits, or money and equipment if it doesn't.

I see Fedora as a distribution that encourages users to be active members of the community, perhaps more than some other distributions. You don't need to be, but it helps if you are. So thanks again. If you do find bugs in your current distribution, please report them too. Or, even better, provide fixes when you can.

Fedora 17 schedule slips

Posted Apr 8, 2012 7:04 UTC (Sun) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

Sure, with Fedora you have the freedom to test buggy new features first and then make friends in the bug tracker.
So freedom, features, first and friends are really fitting for their tag line (JK)
Well, at least most bug reports were taken seriously. Other distros don't have such a good track record. So I agree that Fedora is good for the FOSS ecosystem, but for the first few months it is just too buggy to do anything else with it besides fixing its issues.

Fedora 17 schedule slips

Posted Apr 6, 2012 21:47 UTC (Fri) by jimreynold2nd (guest, #75341) [Link] (2 responses)

Hmm... Since Fedora 11, with the exception of F14 whose final release was delayed by only 1 week, final release of the rest was always delayed by 2 weeks, so this doesn't come as a surprise.

Given that schedule slip is now the norm instead of the exception, shouldn't people already figure out that they need around 2 more weeks for every release? Why make a schedule that would always not be met?

Fedora 17 schedule slips

Posted Apr 7, 2012 5:22 UTC (Sat) by AdamW (subscriber, #48457) [Link]

Because that's not at all how it feels to us, really. We'd much rather fix up development processes to the point where we can ship on time than engineer the delay into the schedule. (There's also the danger that if you make the schedule longer you just wind up with people procrastinating and you get slips anyway.)

We've tightened up a lot of procedures since F15, but in 16 and 17 big changes landed in anaconda far too late and caused the slips we've had in those releases. After 17 ships I want to figure out how we can make sure that doesn't happen again for future releases.

Fedora 17 schedule slips

Posted Apr 7, 2012 20:15 UTC (Sat) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]

Giving two more weeks for every release would not prevent schedule slips. Giving two more weeks for every release would only mean that the slips would happen two weeks later.


Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds