On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 16:26:54 -0500,
Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 14:19 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I propose we create a parallel "Critical Issues" list, using
basically
the same procedures. Issues eligible for this status would be those
which do not necessarily fail a release criterion but which have
critical impact on a Fedora Edition or on a council-approved Fedora
Objective.
So how is this any different from freeze exceptions? Your email
acknowledges that freeze exceptions already exist, but doesn't describe
how you envision critical issues to function differently. What makes an
issue a freeze exception and not a critical issue, or vice-versa?
Freeze exceptions don't have to be critical bugs if they are low risk.
For example fixes to packages that are on a non-releasing blocking spin
can have a very low bar to cross since the chance of introducing a new
blocker is very low.
Probably would should just use the existing freeze exception process
for this purpose? What's the benefit of adding another thing?
The freeze exceptions are often requested when there is already a fix or
when one is anticipated. The list hasn't been useful for getting people
to fix bugs that otherwise weren't being worked on.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
