On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 16:18 +0530, Sudhir D wrote: > > > I don't think it's appropriate to turn FEs into blockers automatically, > > in fact there are obvious cases where it certainly wouldn't be > > appropriate: bugs in non-blocking desktops are typically taken as FEs, > > for instance, as are bugs in secondary arches. Neither of those can > > ever be blockers by policy. > > Ok. We should probably stop calling them as FEs in that case :) and have > a mechanism to track them on basis of priority and have them fixed > before RC. So just to be clear on the terms here: in Fedora we have 'blocker' and 'freeze exception' bugs. A 'blocker' bug must be fixed for the release to go ahead. A 'freeze exception' bug doesn't *have* to be fixed, but we will accept a fix during the milestone freeze period. Sudhir explained his broader meaning to me on the phone, and it's a good point: so long as we don't actually have any process/mechanism for ensuring that 'special' blockers are fixed on time, calling them blockers is really misleading, because we aren't really having them 'block' the release. You're certainly right about that. At Monday's meeting, though, we agreed that we're generally in favour of changing the release process such that we *do* effectively block the release for these bugs, so if we do go ahead and implement that, it will still be correct to refer to them as 'blockers'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
