On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the > Blocker bug process with your proposal. > > And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with > 0day bugs found at the last moment before release ? Should not we have > a statement for Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers > saying that such bugs need to be verified and have enough karma before > relevant Go/No-Go meeting ? My question is base on the experience we > made during F26 release cycle, when we stopped already running > mirroring of a release as we realized the 0day fix will not be ready > at the release day. Having such a statement (and follow it) might save > the effort especially RelEng is putting into the release activities > after Go/No-Go meeting. I think we could certainly stand to clarify the exact requirements around Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers, yes. AFAIK all we have for now is this in the blocker process SOP page: "Accepted0Day is used for cases where the fix does not need to appear in the final frozen release, but must be available as an update on release day. AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix must appear as an update for one or more stable releases." And we're definitely missing some written-down policy about exactly when the updates must be in exactly what state. I think we can do that separately from this, though. I've got a lot on my plate ATM so it'd be great if someone else could do this draft - perhaps you or Kamil (as I know he's been interested in the question before)? -- 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 send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
