On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 5:58 AM Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:44 AM Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com>
> The reason for this proposal is this bugzilla  and this blocker
ticket  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
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.