On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 12:34 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 13:53 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > As I feel it (and would like to have it), "automatic blockers" imply they > > > are such core and basic issues that they are non-questionable and > > > non-waivable (except by FESCo, which is itself part of the same policy and > > > marked to have godly powers). If you read the list of automatic blockers > > > [3], those are broken composes, dead-on-arrival images, incorrect > > > checksums, broken dependencies, and *oversize images*. I don't think anyone > > > but FESCo should be able to say "go" in that case, regardless of when the > > > problem was reported (even minutes before the final meeting). I'd really > > > like automatic to mean automatic, without any consideration. > > > > FWIW, I respectfully disagree with this. The key factor for whether > > something goes on the 'automatic' blockers list is *whether it could > > possibly be ambiguous*, not how waivable it is. > > While I agree that automatic blockers are more about their unambiguous > nature, it is also unambiguous that image size is presently a beta > requirement. That it can be waived, and also that it was > overwhelmingly waived, very strongly suggests a) it should not be a > beta requirement; b) the present maximum size is incorrect and needs > updating; c) there's some kind of unwritten fudge factor, maybe 5% > oversize for beta is OK but 100% wouldn't be. Let's be clear about what we mean by 'waiving'. Actually I'd like to avoid using that word at all (yes I know I did it once, I edited my mail to take them out but missed one). We are *not* 'waiving' the criterion. We are *not* deciding the bug isn't a blocker. We are deciding to mark it as blocking the next milestone instead of the current one. > Essentially, no one found it intuitively compelling or desirable to > actually block release, even though it's unquestionably a blocker. > Since the bug is not blocking the release tells us it is in fact not a > release blocking bug. It's a blocker in name only, in practice it's > not. It's a contradiction, and thus hilarious. But this would be the case for any bug we apply the 'last minute' policy to. There is nothing specific to automatic blockers in anything you write, yet we agreed the policy anyway, and AFAIR you +1ed it. -- 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 send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
