Re: Proposal refinement of the late blocker exception

[Kamil Paral]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:52 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com&gt;
> 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?
>  
Sounds a bit clearer to me. But again, no strong opinion here.