On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I think this:
"If the release is declared no-go, the bug loses last minute status."
should be part of our policy. I considered it obvious, but I'm sure some people (/me
looking at Frantisek) would argue. Let's put it there.
The proposed phrasing sounds ok to me, even though there is technically (since you enjoy
it) a little bit of catch-22. You can't declare the release go, before you deal with
all the blockers, and you can't postpone a last minute bug according to your phrasing,
before you declare the release go. But it doesn't bother me too much.
I disagree, but I can see the ambiguity. If I edit it to "If the
release is subsequently declared go..." does that make it more clear?
Also, I think the "can be accepted" should be "must be
accepted". Except the obvious case where it doesn't make sense, like the
wallpapers bug. I think we don't need to codify that corner case.
I'm okay with this. In the case of the wallpapres bug, we'd either
ship it later (so it wouldn't come up for F N+1 Beta) or close it as
invalid. I agree that it's a corner case not worth legislating.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis