On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:52 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Sounds a bit clearer to me. But again, no strong opinion here.
_______________________________________________ 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
