Review of Fedora 18 Release Criteria

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 16:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 22:08 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2012 09:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>> I think that way we could make the meetings more efficient without
> >>> running the risk of missing proposals.
> >> 
> >> The most time in the meetings is to get people to ack/nack/patch...
> > 
> > [citation needed]
> > 
> > it should be easy to check that from logs, but I doubt it's really true,
> > I expect the average time from propose #agreed to #agreed is pretty
> > short.
> 
> Most of the time spend is reading the bug, understanding it, and
> trying to infer why it's a blocker (that is huge because most bugs
> don't explicitly make the case); including time spent by reviewers
> looking over the release criteria for explicit justification for
> blocking.
> 
> I agree with the idea that a blocker proposal tool is needed. The tool
> would be more soliciting of blockers on the one hand by reducing
> obscurity for proposing them; while also ensuring some minimum amount
> of justification for the proposal in the first place.

Yep, I definitely like the idea. The only problem is the classic one -
development resources. Tim has about ten awesome tooling ideas, and the
time to work on one :) I'd love if we got an awesome blocker bug
management (web)app from the Magical Unicorn Machine tomorrow, but I
suspect in the short term, the triage idea is more practical as all it
requires is someone with a bugzilla login and a keyboard, not someone
with the ability to bash bits of code together in the right order.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net