On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Kamil Paral <kparal@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?