On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ah. It's a shame it wasn't put up for consideration as a release > > blocker. Obviously the rather peremptory response from Jakub didn't help > > with that... > > Would the flag concept for blocker status that Jesse was championing > recently have helped in this situation. If the bug is closed with a > non fixed resolution, but flagged with request from the reporter to be > a blocker would this have provided a mechanism to escalate this issue > into a release management discussion that would have revisited the > issue and overturned Jakub's assessment of the situation? Or would > resolution as notabug have nullified a blocker request flag mechanism? It's a bit intangible and not entirely predicated on whether we're using the keyword or flag setup, I think. Currently when we're considering bugs we use a search that excludes closed bugs, so even if you flag a closed bug with F14Blocker or whatever, it won't get on the agenda for the review meeting unless someone explicitly mentions it. I'm not sure Jesse's proposed system necessarily makes any difference to that; even if we're using flags, I don't think we'd automatically start doing searches that included closed bugs. But of course, it might make sense not to worry about the bug status with the more fine-grained info the flag system would provide. Now I've waffled a bit =) I think the ultimate answer is that it's certainly _possible_ we could use the proposed flag system to consider blocker status even for closed bugs, yeah. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
