Sender: test-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On-Behalf-Of: tflink@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Review and notification of blocker bugs Message-Id: <20110728162037.0742101a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Recipient: npape@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Forwarded: Neal.Pape@xxxxxxxxxxx
--- Begin Message ---
- Subject: Re: Review and notification of blocker bugs
- From: Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:20:37 -0600
- Delivered-to: test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <1311889932.1955.67.camel@adam>
- Organization: Red Hat
- References: <1311889932.1955.67.camel@adam>
- Reply-to: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases <test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:52:12 -0700 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > "Daily Review & Notification of Open Alpha|Beta|Final Blocker Bugs" > is a trickier customer. As scheduled, it seems to suggest that for > Alpha, Beta and Final, we should be 'reviewing and notifying' open > blockers for an arbitrary-seeming one week (Monday to Friday) period > between the second and third blocker review meetings. > > So, a few questions: > > 1. Does anyone know where this comes from, and what's the intent > behind it? CCing John for that purpose. > > 2. Does anyone think it's a good idea to simply do this as scheduled > - a daily blocker review for a one-week period in the middle of each > release phase? That seems a little odd to me at first glance and I'm not sure that we'd see much benefit for one week in the middle of each release phase. It doesn't seem like a time period where the rate of change in the blocker/nth bugs would be high enough to justify daily meetings. > 3. If 'no' to question 2, do people think we need to do some sort of > review and notification outside of the blocker meetings and updating > the bugs themselves? If so, what? I think that there could be some value in going over the blocker list between meetings but I'm not as sure about formalizing a time for it. I certainly don't think that there would be a benefit to pestering reporters and devs about bugs on a daily basis - that would be counterproductive. The possible benefit I can see would be the potential to catch big issues a couple of days earlier than we otherwise would. I wonder how many major issues went undetected in F15 until a blocker review meeting. It seems to me that we could achieve the same effect by going over them bit by bit between the blocker review meetings. Any implementation for this seems similar to the proposal to reduce blocker bug review meeting length [1] maybe they could end up being combined if successful. Tim [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/221Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
--- End Message ---
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
