Re: Btrfs related bugs, new proposal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 15:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Proposal is to submit them to FESCo to a.) acknowledge they're
>> blockers;
>
> I don't see any need for FESCo to do that. We have a process for
> deciding whether bugs are blockers. If what you really want is a FESCo-
> shaped stick to wave at developers, I'm not sure that's really going
> to *help* anything.

The process for the grubby bug has resulted in three different
determinations. It's come up for review more times than I want to
count, and is up for review yet again (twice just in this cycle). My
motivation here is strictly to arrive at a definitive determination
and stick to it, so QA doesn't ever have to see this bug again.



>>  b.) grant an exception for blocking Fedora 22 on the basis
>> that they're not crazy showstoppers for many people yet; and c.)
>> should be tagged as blockers for Fedora 23, and as such there are no
>> excuses for them not getting fixed by then.
>
> Again I don't see any reason to invoke FESCo to do any of that. If we
> wanted to do that, it's perfectly fine to do so through the usual
> blocker review processes and the teams involved, by policy, in those.

If there's a way for QA to state a bug is a blocker, but will block
the next Fedora rather than the current one, that's news to me. If so,
great, I suggest doing that. Get them both off the Fedora 22 plate.

The motivation for postponing 1185117 to Fedora 23 is because I
suspect fixing it involves non-trivial UI consideration to make it
possible to delete pools. If you want me to ask anaconda if they
concur, I will. And if you want me to just drop this thread's
premises/conclusion entirely, fine too.


On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 15:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Why? Process. I think it's better to adhere to process, and thus far
>> there's a rather obvious resistance to fixing these two bugs in the
>> Fedora 22 time frame. So here's an alternative approach.
>
> I'll note that we've never violated process in relation to 864198,
> AFAICS. Each time it's come up, the resolution has been to disallow
> /boot on btrfs. So far as the blocker process is concerned, that's a
> perfectly valid approach to making the bug not a blocker.

Release criteria as currently written, the installer must "Create
mount points backed by ... btrfs volumes", and /boot is a mount point,
therefore the above approach, while completely sane, is certainly a
gray area. If this same bug applied to XFS would it be treated the
same? Ext4?

-- 
Chris Murphy
-- 
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux