On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:03:34 -0700 > Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This is exactly what I *don't* want to happen, and what rather annoys >> me about this whole business. >> >> The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use >> as a reminder system. It doesn't work very well for that. The >> expectation the blocker process is built around is that people should >> be working towards its requirements *all the time*, ideally well in >> advance, and the blocker process is there to catch the relatively >> *few* cases where things break unexpectedly. It's absolutely not >> supposed to work like this: >> >> * QA tests Thing and finds no-one ever even started working on it >> * QA files bug and marks it blocker >> * Team Thing starts working on Thing >> >> I realize that's an exaggerated example, but it's just to make the >> point clear. That's not a sane development process. > > +1000. > > I'd like to propose something somewhat shocking. > > How about we get these things done in rawhide, so we are a release > ahead of things instead of scrambling to get them done at the last > minute all the time. > > Cannot the design team work on F24 wallpaper _right_ now? get it in > rawhide and test that it's all there and then when we branch it's done, > they can work on f25 in rawhide and so on. > > Just a thought... For that matter, it still baffles me that there are late changes (before and even after freeze) that get applied to Rawhide and Fedora N concurrently. I thought such changes were supposed to go in Rawhide first. That's what I think needs teeth, is ending this simultaneous application of changes to Rawhide and current. -- Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
