Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

2017-08-18 Thread Kamil Paral
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > > Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the > > Blocker bug process with your proposal. > > > > And there is one more topic

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

2017-08-10 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the > Blocker bug process with your proposal. > > And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with > 0day bugs found at the last moment before release ?

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

2017-08-10 Thread Jan Kurik
Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the Blocker bug process with your proposal. And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with 0day bugs found at the last moment before release ? Should not we have a statement for Accepted0Day and

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

2017-08-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks! So there was some great feedback on the first version of this proposal; here's the second draft, with all the suggestions considered and applied. Note, given the misunderstanding between Kamil and Matt, I added a little