On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 09:14 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > From my perspective, anything that blocks the release is on the > critical path. So any time there's a violation of the release criteria > and the package is not on the critical path definition, that's a bug > in the definition. > > I recognize that this is a somewhat naïve view. For one, it may > broaden the definition beyond the current capacity of our test > infrastructure. It also may broaden the definition beyond what > maintainers are willing to put up with. These are both legitimate > problems. But the closer we can get to this ideal state, the better. > > For anyone who is curious, I just searched for all accepted blockers > in the "Fedora" product in Bugzilla. 327 components have been a > blocker at least once. Some of those may no longer be blocking and > others will be added over time as our criteria change. The full list > with counts is at > https://bcotton.fedorapeople.org/release-blocking-components.csv if > you're interested. Honestly, something along these lines would be my preference too, I just don't know if others would agree/support changing the critical path definition to "all release-blocking functionality" rather than "functionality needed to boot a basically-functional system". Thanks for the data! I will see if I can diff it against the current critpath definition; that would be interesting. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
