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
