On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 15:03 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote: > Unless there's a good use case > that would require two lists or a list plus flags, why not include > both "hard" and "soft" blockers on a single monitoring list? I agree > with Adam's leanings - after a blocker meeting determines a bug is a > "soft" blocker, it's sufficient to indicate that in a comment on the > bug. There's no real need for that attribute to be separately > queryable, because for release preparation and scheduling purposes the > whole list is gone through one by one. > > We don't really have any restrictions on what kind of fixes go in, so there really isn't such a thing as a "soft" blocker. Either it blocks the release or it doesn't. If it doesn't, and the update can get through bodhi in time, it'll get included. If it blocks, we won't release until the update gets built. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
