Review request: Nice-to-have bug process documentation proposal

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 07:12 -0400, John Poelstra wrote:

> On the other hand it has taken us a *long* time to get to the place 
> where we are today where churn in RC has been reduced to a bare minimum. 
>   I still subscribe to the theory (realizing some in Fedora don't) that 
> every additional change adds a level of risk of delaying the release. 
> So my hope is that by formalizing the NTH we aren't encouraging an 
> increased amount of churn.

I hope so too, that's not the aim of the proposal, just to formalize
what we're doing already.

> I DO think this is an important section in the guidelines that will help 
> cover this concern:
> 
> "In general, nice-to-have bugs are usually bugs for which an update is 
> not an optimal solution, and for which the fix is reasonably small and 
> testable (this consideration becomes progressively more important as a 
> release nears, so bugs may be downgraded from nice-to-have status late 
> in the release process if it transpires that the fix is complex and hard 
> to test)."
> 
> Would it be overkill to put more explicit testing sign-off around NTH bugs?

Hard to be sure. On the one hand, they have more attention from more
people than most bugs. On the other hand, the whole point is the
compressed timescale involved. So it's kinda 50/50.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net