On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 21:38 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Low priority: I'm tempted to nominate this year old bug as a final >> blocker under the data corruption provision. And I'm wondering what >> people think of this. > > I would vote -1 on it. > >> The bug is an RFE so making it a blocker is, well, it's 50% RFE and >> 50% data corruption bug, and is an odd duck way of getting it fixed >> but there's no traction in a year, not even a comment. > > The release blocker system is for correctly identifying *release > blocker* bugs, it's not a generic 'flag for attention' system. Which is why I originally filed it as an RFE. But since then it's become much more clearly a consistent corruption problem and as such is sliding more toward design flaw then feature request. I mean, no one ever says "hey feature request, let's not corrupt bootloader partitions." > That > was what we had before with the FXXTarget bugs, but no-one ever really > paid much attention to them. Well the out in the data corruption criteria is "document it", so even if it doesn't get fixed there's more awareness... -- Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
