On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 11:52 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 13:22 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 14:28:33 -0400, > > James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > == Suggested Meeting Preparation == > > > > Is there a plan to steamline dealing with all of the systemd create a native > > service bugs? > > Here's a plan: we reject them all. > > Since we started 'modernizing' the blocker process we've been consistent > in saying that incomplete features are not release blockers, and I'm > increasingly confident this is the correct way to handle it. I hadn't yet worked through the specifics that you outlined, but I fully expected us to review and accept/reject them as a whole. > Rationale: > > # The release blocker system is intended to ensure the quality of the > release, not the completeness of its features > > # Fedora works on a time-based release system: we do not consider it a > requirement that features be complete in order to ship a release > > # There is a feature process which is separate from the release > validation process, and managed by FESCo > > taking all of these together, I think the correct approach is that > incomplete features are not considered to block releases, and that it's > FESCo's responsibility to deal with incomplete / late features under the > feature process, in whatever way they deem best so long as it's > compatible with all freezes. This usually means that they either give > the feature a pass and let the developer complete it a bit late, or drop > the feature; they've never said 'hey, let's hold up the release for > this' except in very specific circumstances (like systemd last time > around). Since this seems to come up at least once a cycle, we should > probably explicitly codify it into the release criteria. > > Thoughts welcome :) Your ideas are consistent with how we've handled this before, I don't think I could have articulated nearly as well though :) My understanding is that FESCO is the right place to discuss whether a feature should block a release or not. Translation ... I agree :) Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
