Re: proposal: move Data Corruption criterion from Final to Beta

[Kamil Paral]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 5:58 AM Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:44 AM Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
>
>  > The reason for this proposal is this bugzilla [1] and this blocker
>  ticket [2] where we discussed whether we should ship an older Firefox on
>  F33 Beta media, which was known to completely wipe the whole user profile
>  on upgraded systems. We didn't (and still don't) have any release criterion
>  which says that this situation should not occur. Fortunately, in the F33
>  Beta case, we managed to ship a fixed version of Firefox in time, and so we
>  didn't really need to make a decision back then.
>
>  My recollection is the older Firefox did ship on beta media. There
>  wasn't a newer successfully built Firefox still.
>  
Perhaps you're right and the older FF was on media, and the newer FF was
just in updates. It doesn't really matter much, it's just an example of a
potential issue.


>  But yeah, I support moving the criterion to beta. The language says
>  "must be fixed or documented" - who decides which? 

See this footnote under the criterion:
"Fixed or documented?
If the issue is sufficiently serious, we may consider that documenting it
is not sufficient and it must be fixed. This is a subjective determination
that will be made at blocker review or Go/No-Go meetings."


>  It reads like there
>  are up to three decisions to make for this criterion: 1) is it a
>  blocker? 2) should it be documented or fixed for beta? 3) should it be
>  documented or fixed for final?
>  
Yes, that sounds right. We can for example decide that it's sufficient to
have it documented for Beta, but it needs to be fixed for Final.