On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think this: > "If the release is declared no-go, the bug loses last minute status." > should be part of our policy. I considered it obvious, but I'm sure some people (/me looking at Frantisek) would argue. Let's put it there. > > The proposed phrasing sounds ok to me, even though there is technically (since you enjoy it) a little bit of catch-22. You can't declare the release go, before you deal with all the blockers, and you can't postpone a last minute bug according to your phrasing, before you declare the release go. But it doesn't bother me too much. > I disagree, but I can see the ambiguity. If I edit it to "If the release is subsequently declared go..." does that make it more clear? > Also, I think the "can be accepted" should be "must be accepted". Except the obvious case where it doesn't make sense, like the wallpapers bug. I think we don't need to codify that corner case. > I'm okay with this. In the case of the wallpapres bug, we'd either ship it later (so it wouldn't come up for F N+1 Beta) or close it as invalid. I agree that it's a corner case not worth legislating. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ 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
