Re: GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 10:13 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Adam Williamson
> <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 12:14 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > My opinion, since there are few facts to go on to overcome the burden
> > > stated in a written process and schedule for some time, is -1 FE. If
> > > it was important enough to get 3.30 on actual Beta installation media,
> > > it needed to be done before freeze. Not depend on a freeze exception.
> > > That is definitely not how things are supposed to work.
> > 
> > As it happens, it is how things have been working, though. We've
> > granted freeze exceptions for GNOME megaupdates for many of the last
> > several releases (I can go back and get precise numbers if you like).
> 
> That's OK. Besides, there's some chance I have voted +1 FE for a GNOME
> megaupdate, not least of which is because:
> 
> 
> > Notably, I can't recall a single instance where they broke the world.
> > This is not something I can say about a lot of packages, so I think the
> > desktop team deserves some credit and trust for that.
> 
> For sure. But that is orthogonal to freeze exception. It's like using
> FE as some kind of Good Job sticker.

I wouldn't say it's orthogonal, at all. It's a significant factor. It's
true to say that we shouldn't grant something FE status *solely
because* we don't think it's likely to break anything terribly. It's
not *sufficient* justification in itself. But if there is, let's say, a
plausible case for "there are some good reasons to let this in Beta"
but *also* a plausible case for "...but it's kinda late and we don't
absolutely *need* it and it's change!", then the track record of that
team and that kind of change absolutely does factor into whether I'm
likely to vote +1.

> And we all know there is increased probability that blocker bugs are
> not found or are found later than otherwise, because of diverted
> attention toward testing the megaupdate. There is no way of predicting
> or assessing this, but logically it's true. And so this particular
> usage of freeze exception ends up having more in common with craps,
> than a well deserved Good Job sticker.

Eh. I don't think more people testing Workstation, for whatever reason,
is really going to be a *bad* thing. Maybe the increased attention
causes us to find a blocker we'd otherwise have missed?
-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux