On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 06:28 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> IIRC the text in fact uses "unaddressed" specifically *instead* of
> saying "open", as a slight fudge for cases where a bug might still be
> open but is in fact fully 'addressed'. We *are* reducing the likelihood
> of that scenario with this change (i.e. we can't say "go" if a fix is
> in the compose but not yet pushed stable any more), but I'm not 100%
> sure we've removed any possibility of a bug being in this state
> somehow. So I'm not 100% against this change but a bit worried by it.
> > I also switched GOLD to GO, which seems to be an oversight
> > past.
> It's not, exactly. The two terms sort of coexist, it wasn't just that
> we switched from saying "gold" to saying "go" at some point.
> Conceptually it's the *release candidate* specifically that gets
> declared "gold", while the *release process* is "go" (or we are
> release") if the candidate is declared "gold". I think we could at
> least *conceptually* declare a release candidate "GOLD" but not be
> for release. It's kinda unnecessary to have both concepts, but the text
> reads slightly awkwardly if you simply do s/GOLD/GO/g/ as you did,
> because we don't really "declare the release "GO"",
that's a somewhat
> odd phrasing.
> I don't really mind if we want to rephrase this a bit to drop the
> 'gold' concept - we barely use it anywhere else but on this page - but
> it feels like it should be a separate change, not part of this
> revision, and it should be slightly more than just a search-n-replace
> so the text doesn't read weird :)
OK, I reverted this.
Thanks! So for me this is good to go.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net