-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2015-07-13 07:43 PM, Ian Booth wrote: > By the definition given > > "If a bug must be fixed for the next minor release, it is > considered a ‘blocker’ and will prevent all landing on that > branch." > > that bug and any other that we say we must include in a release > would block landings. That's the bit I'm having an issue with. I > think landings need to be blocked when appropriate, but not by that > definition.
Here's my rationale: 1. We have held the principle that our trunk and stable branches should always be releaseable. 2. We have said we should stop-the-line when a branch becomes unreleasable. 3. Therefore, I have concluded that we should stop-the-line when a bug is present that makes the branch unreleasable. Do you agree with 1 and 2? I think 3 simply follows from 1 and 2, but am I wrong? > Depends on the changes. I think we should be pragmatic and make > considered decisions. I guess that's why we have the jfdi flag. It's true that the particulars of the bug may matter in deciding whether it should block, and that's why there's a process for overriding the blocking tag: "Exceptions are raised to the release team." I think JFDI should be considered a nuclear option. If you need it, it's good that it exists, but you shouldn't ever need it. If you think you need it, there may be a problem with our process. Aaron -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVpQ3pAAoJEK84cMOcf+9h4wYIALzMezSmErdb8Gjuq89aRVU/ CKXZGJ7fWDrsogmsBDOdNhjmtOiIkUIQiZhd3UW5+2WlC+8eix5weJGBWKIo21gx 1hLvR6p6SnZ4zlfxV0RV0pbnfq6RqySEV9agnXzM//H/iqDwZp74ELCgR/1mLkXh yr19JH1TVx35emqNgO6yFqFVUU6khLPM4JyJ47cjcrDip5f0qLj4gf0nRRE+rasa uL1bJc47P0HnLr9xKxBWAioo4OMMb2RAUsgApznXWlqu/P3+TVk1eMQf7Vk1XHV8 DbqZgMLz5iJHFpI5T6IUPeeo6BOBz+zhfse6MCqOcOavpsJTzrysMLiqrCpUYt0= =KeYb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
