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

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)

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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

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

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)

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

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > However, I think I misread your comment. I believed you're proposing we > reject bugs existing in stable releases as blockers at any point of the > development cycle. But you seem to have suggested we do this only if > they're

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand > is > > why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand is > why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new bugs. > What is the rationale? And if you want to treat them differently, then how? I

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > > > something that also affects the current release (either as released

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > > something that also affects the current release (either as released or > > with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation > > but

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

The proposal sounds fine. On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > something that also affects the current release (either as released or > with updates)? If something is a

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 09:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:48:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties > > (usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must > > be taken into account,

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:48:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties > (usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must > be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a > 'conditional'

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 02:01 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug > > can possibly be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to > > be made. For instance, fixing the bug may be a task of such technical