On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 12:10 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I think the best evidence of this is the number of bugs which get > > proposed as blockers or NTH without any justification of why or citing > > of any release criterion that might be violated. I take that as "the > > process isn't being communicated well and is complicated" rather than > > "contributors are ignoring stuff". > > I think it's more of the latter and less of the former, but a combination of both. I remember it being communicated in the blocker submission documentation. But maybe other people are finding out how to submit blockers not via documentation but by mimicking blocker bugs, or from the email list. Right, and speaking personally, I actually err on the side of encouraging people to submit blockers even without all the i's dotted and the t's crossed rather than discouraging them from submission by being too hard about sticking precisely to the process. The thought that we might miss a blocker bug can certainly keep you awake at night, but the annoyance of having to figure out whether an unclear submission is a blocker or not is really just an annoyance... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
