On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:31 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 12:49 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote: > >> And in this scope. Inability to upgrade would be such a Beta blocker, methinks. > > > > Sure. But the above doesn't mean that beta and final blockers should be > > *fixed* in Alpha (obviously not). The point is that the Alpha exists *in > > order to be used for the discovery of bugs that will block Beta and > > Final*. i.e., we need an Alpha release to test upgrading, find out that > > it's broken, and file a bug that blocks the Beta release. :) > > That was in fact my point. > I make no argument as to whether identifiable Beta blockers identified > prior to Alpha release should necessarily become Alpha blockers. > The answer to that I fear is stuck in the morass of "case by case > judgement call." Not really, no: they're Beta blockers. The time when they're discovered is not relevant. An issue has to infringe the Alpha criteria to be considered an Alpha blocker. The process allows us to flag up Beta and Final blockers long before we actually hit the Beta or Final cycles, so there's no real problem with this. If we want an issue to block Alpha, then we need to propose and rationally defend an Alpha criterion. > Luckily its not my call. Now if you'll excuse me I need to find my > pitchfork so I won't look out of place as a slip back into the angry > mob. You'll need a flaming torch too! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
