Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:34 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 08:52 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
Ah. There's a program that is supposed to respond to button-presses on a
scanner. buttond or some such.
Its presence doesn't much affect the release, but in the context of
_that application_ I'd classify it as critical, a release blocker and
simply omit it unless someone (the packager?) actually tested it and
made it work.
Well, I'd classify it as priority low, severity critical. I don't see
why it should block a release. Sure, it's crappy code, but it's not
It wouldn't block the release of anything more than itself;-)
Oh. Well I'm not talking General Bug Tracking Theory here. I'm talking
about Fedora, and the only thing we really 'release' is distributions.
We (triage team) shouldn't be getting into the business of whether or
not a packager should be pushing his packages, that's too fine grained
for us...
At some point, there is someone (or some group) that decides what goes
out. If this package surfaced as a "candidate release blocker," a
reasonable resolution would be to drop the package. That is what I
expected to happen - the quality of the release would be higher without
it. Of course, of the offending package was the kernel, the resolution
would be different, it might be reversion to an earlier version of the
package, it might delay the release.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
