Re: Review request: Nice-to-have bug process documentation proposal

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

 



On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 12:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 11:23 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> 
> > > Would it be overkill to put more explicit testing sign-off around NTH bugs?
> > 
> > I don't see why not.  I think this topic came up in a previous mail.
> > I'd propose that NTH bugs must be tested and have appropriate bodhi
> > karma for them to be included.  But as noted in a previous mail, I
> > *think* this might be something that release engineering will need to
> > specify on their documentation regarding how to compose release
> > candidates (jkeating or dgilmore can correct me here).  Is there an SOP
> > for that process now?
> 
> As noted in the meeting, for final release, all fixes (blocker and NTH)
> have to go through testing and be pushed to stable, we do not use a side
> repo for the final composes. This is necessary to ensure that final
> images match the final published repos.
> 
> > Another distinction to consider
> >      1. Using the language you noted earlier that "[NTH] bugs are
> >         usually bugs for which an update is not an optimal solution".
> >         To me this implicitly states that NTH packages must be on the
> >         media.  If it's not on the media, it's not eligible.
> 
> That's probably true.
> 
> >      2. Extending the above ... I wonder if it's reasonable that NTH
> >         cannot be accepted for critical path components.  For critical
> >         path, it's a blocker or not, let's not fiddle with critpath if a
> >         respin is needed to address blocker issues.
> 
> I disagree with this. It just doesn't match practice. Both before
> implementing the formal NTH process this release and after, many - in
> fact, I think most - NTH bugs have been in critpath components.
> Especially given that many of them will be anaconda or X driver or
> kernel issues, I don't think this would make any sense.

Oh your right.  Lemme rethink if there is a better way to articulate my
thoughts.  I was searching for a generic way to say, potentially
disruptive changes to core packages aren't a good fit for NTH.  The NTH
xorg bug#596557 discussed during the blocker meeting [1] being a good
example.  

I'll see if there's a way to rephrase my proposal to be more accurate.

Thanks,
James

[1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2010-10-08/fedora-bugzappers.2010-10-08-15.59.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux