Re: Fedora Linux 35 Final blocker review summary

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 12:17 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-10-17 at 08:55 -0300, Geraldo Simião Kutz wrote:
> > Ok, I understand the point, I too have lived with some of these bugs and
> > don't noticed them until now. It's fair to move on and don't hold the
> > release hostage as Matthew said, but for that I think we should add some
> > rule, policie or something to the release blocking criteria allowing that,
> > because most of these bugs meet one or other criteria and we must be
> > consistent.
> You can make an argument against the repo enable/disable bugs even on
> the merits, honestly. We seem to be rather expanding our definition of
> 'critical functionality' lately. When we first wrote that criterion, I
> don't think we would've expected it to cover "visual issues with
> flatpak/fwupd repo enabling in the package manager", but at least three
> people voted that way this time, so the bugs got accepted. It's
> reasonable for someone - especially someone from KDE SIG - to say hang
> on, we wouldn't have voted that way, can we please re-vote it? If
> someone does come to a meeting or ticket with a reasonable argument
> against the decision, we can re-consider it. We have plenty of
> precedent for re-voting blockers based on new information (like "it's
> been broken for years and apparently nobody cared a lot") or reasoning
> ("is this really critical functionality?")
> I do think that if we're going to go hard on package manager
> functionality as release-blocking, it might be a good idea to extend
> the explicit criteria, rather than rely on the 'critical functionality
> test' wording. Honestly, when we first wrote that criterion, for a
> package manager I would've expected it to cover "run the app and
> install a package", I wouldn't really expect it to go as far as
> covering the repo configuration bugs we currently have as blockers.

I was surprised that these wound up being blockers because we had some
of these issues in previous Fedora releases. It was quite an
unpleasant surprise to have three blockers on Plasma Discover at the
last minute like this. But also, I really do wish we had more
prescriptive explicit criteria about package management so that we can
align our expectations on what *should* work.

真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
kde mailing list -- kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kde-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:

[Index of Archives]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Mail]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Triage]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux