On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Jan Kurik <jkurik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
as discussed in thread [1] I would like to propose update of the
blocker process SOP page [2] regarding Accepted0Day and
AcceptedPreviousRelease. Currently we have in the policy the following
statement:
"Accepted0Day is used for cases where the fix does not need to appear
in the final frozen release, but must be available as an update on
release day. AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix
must appear as an update for one or more stable releases."
This statement does not fully define timing of Accepted0Day and
AcceptedPreviousRelease with regard to release date. During F26
release cycle we were on Go/No-Go meetings discussing whether we need
to block release on a bug or whether we can release it as 0day. The
main concern was timing of 0day bugs where we did not have guaranteed
that a fix for the 0day bug will be available on time for the release
day. Having this experience I would like to propose update of the
blocker process SOP page [2], defining also more specific timing of
0day bugs. My proposal looks as follow:
"Accepted0Day is used for cases where the fix does not need to appear
in the final frozen release, but must be available as an update on
release day. AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix
must appear as an update for one or more stable releases. If an
Accepted0Day or an AcceptedPreviousRelease might possibly block a
release it must be also verified at the time of Go/No-Go meeting for
the related release day, otherwise it is considered as a blocker."
Does anyone has any objection or concern to update the SOP as proposed ?
And I just replied to the original thread :)
However, I don't see any collision between what I wrote and and your proposed clarification, so I'm fine with that new paragraph.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
