On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 09:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:48:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties > > (usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must > > be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a > > 'conditional' violation of the release criteria. At least the following > > will almost always be relevant: > > > > * The severity and likely prevalence of the bug > > * Whether the bug could, or should, have been discovered earlier > > * How long the release in question has already been delayed > > * Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out > > other desirable work > > * The possible effects of the expected delay (to Fedora itself, and > > also to other things influenced by Fedora's schedules, including > > downstream projects) > > > For "could, or should, have been discovered earlier", there's also > "raised as a blocker earlier". There were a couple this time around > that actually had bugs filed but we didn't prioritize them until the > last minute. > > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > something that also affects the current release (either as released or > with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation > but isn't a regression *and* we're running late, using further release > delay as a forcing function feels like cutting off our nose to spite > our face. Both good points and in line with current practice, will add to a later draft. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
