On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> As with all the others who've weighed in so far, I agree that the
> optimal path is just for us all to talk to each other. I generally
> prefer workflows that assume everyone's happy to work positively
> together to a consensus solu
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 07:58 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:02:07PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi, folks! So, I quickly bashed out that draft F21 Test Plan I've been
> > threatening to write for the last month or so.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/
On Tue, 27 May 2014 07:58:55 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Yeah. If something isn't working, do you think the best path is QA->WG
> directly, or should it be QA says something to FESCo, FESCo works
> with WG?
>
> Since parts of this are new to all of us, and other parts new to a
> lot of us,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:02:07PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> for Fedora 21 testing *overall* - i.e. it's the QA team's responsibility
>> to make sure the WGs do the stuff assigned to them in the plan. If that
>> makes sense. Discussio
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:02:07PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks! So, I quickly bashed out that draft F21 Test Plan I've been
> threatening to write for the last month or so.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_21_test_plan
> So, what's the idea here?
Psshh -- s
