On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > QA referred the question of whether upgrades from a release where i686 > was 'release blocking' (<24) to releases where i686 is 'non blocking' > (>23) should be considered 'release blocking' to FESCo. i.e. if there > are violations of the release criteria in this upgrade path, should we > treat that as blocking the Beta or Final releases. FESCo's decision was > "no". So no matter what, all i686 images (qcow2, raw, ISOs) are non-blocking. Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all primary archs, because i686 is a primary arch. And a failed build means it won't be tagged for compose so depending on the package it could hold up composes. But the current i686 problems aren't package build failures, rather it's a particular critical path package (or two) that are broadly or entirely non-functional when executed. So what's it called when a critical path package fails to function on a primary arch? And what's done about it? >From my limited perspective, such non-functional failure held up release when it violated a release criterion in effect because that non-functionality became coupled with image blocking, i.e. if kernel doesn't function, then image doesn't function/is DOA, DOA images are a release criteria violation, therefore block. Correct? Or is there some terminology nuance here that I'm still missing in the sequence? > I really think it would help if we use these terms carefully and > precisely, and if we're going to re-define them in any way, make that > clear and explicit. It's best to assume I don't understand the terms well enough to use them precisely, rather than assume I'm trying to redefine them. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
