Fedora 12 Beta Blocker Meeting #1 Recap--2009-09-11

[John Poelstra]

Today was the first of many exciting blocker bug review meetings in 
anticipation of the Fedora 12 Beta release.  Thanks to everyone who 
filed bugs and participated in the discussion.  I think we saw a much 
smoother release (or at least less surprises) of the Fedora 12 Alpha by 
doing these reviews each week.  Hopefully the same will be true for the 
Beta and final release!

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498591  (poelcat,
   15:03:53)
   * ACTION: 498591 fix to be confirmed by lili/rhe  (adamw, 15:08:00)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515450  (poelcat,
   15:08:01)
   * ACTION: 515450 to be tested to confirm fix  (poelcat, 15:09:48)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516042  (poelcat,
   15:10:12)
   * IDEA: create (or locate) stock-responses to use for updating
     reviewed bugs  (jlaska, 15:14:44)
   * ACTION: for 516042 complete patch review and build new package then
     moved to modified  (poelcat, 15:17:35)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516104  (poelcat,
   15:17:55)
   * ACTION: 516042 celebrate  (poelcat, 15:18:50)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517260  (poelcat,
   15:18:58)
   * ACTION: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517260 move to
     ASSIGNED  (poelcat, 15:21:37)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517833  (poelcat,
   15:21:50)
   * ACTION: 517833 in the hands of anaconda team, denise will bump
     priority  (adamw, 15:24:14)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518194  (poelcat,
   15:25:47)
   * ACTION: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518194 restest
     when anaconda-12.24 lands  (poelcat, 15:27:24)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518226  (poelcat,
   15:27:39)
   * ACTION: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518226 waiting
     for feedback from maintainer check back next week  (poelcat,
     15:35:43)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519237  (poelcat,
   15:35:55)
   * ACTION: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519237  change
     component to upstart  (poelcat, 15:40:52)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520207  (poelcat,
   15:44:27)
   * ACTION: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520207 change
     maintainer to dcantrell and revsist next week as he is on vacation
     (poelcat, 15:48:51)

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520515  (poelcat,
   15:50:37)
   * ACTION: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520515 request
     more info on nature of this issue and impact to users + revisit at
     next meeting  (poelcat, 15:59:29)


Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2009-09-11/fedora-bugz...
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2009-09-11/fedora-bugz...

Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2009-09-11/fedora-bugz...

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:51:09PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>  Today was the first of many exciting blocker bug review meetings in 
>
>  anticipation of the Fedora 12 Beta release.  Thanks to everyone who  
>  filed bugs and participated in the discussion.  I think we saw a much  
>  smoother release (or at least less surprises) of the Fedora 12 Alpha by  
>  doing these reviews each week.  Hopefully the same will be true for the  
>  Beta and final release! 
I wanted to suggest https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518880
as a candidate for blocker status, because it's a regression in a
well-publicized feature.  (The maintainers are already aware of the
problem and working on it, I'd just like to make sure it's not lost in
the shuffle.)

That criterion is worth considering generally for blocker status.  But
maybe it needs some refinement?

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

[John Poelstra]

Paul W. Frields said the following on 09/14/2009 05:23 AM Pacific Time:
>  On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:51:09PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> > Today was the first of many exciting blocker bug review meetings in  
> > anticipation of the Fedora 12 Beta release.  Thanks to everyone who  
> > filed bugs and participated in the discussion.  I think we saw a much  
> > smoother release (or at least less surprises) of the Fedora 12 Alpha by  
> > doing these reviews each week.  Hopefully the same will be true for the  
> > Beta and final release!
>  
>  I wanted to suggest https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518880
>  as a candidate for blocker status, because it's a regression in a
>  well-publicized feature.  (The maintainers are already aware of the
>  problem and working on it, I'd just like to make sure it's not lost in
>  the shuffle.)
>  
>  That criterion is worth considering generally for blocker status.  But
>  maybe it needs some refinement?
>   
I see that it is on F12Target, but I still think it could get lost in 
the shuffle as we don't review that list at the blocker meetings.

I'll move it to blocker so it at least gets discussed and tracked 
closer... with the understanding that it might be removed later.

John

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 08:23 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:

>  I wanted to suggest
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518880
>  as a candidate for blocker status, because it's a regression in a
>  well-publicized feature.  (The maintainers are already aware of the
>  problem and working on it, I'd just like to make sure it's not lost in
>  the shuffle.)
>  
>  That criterion is worth considering generally for blocker status.  But
>  maybe it needs some refinement? 
We don't really have hard and fast criteria for blockers. This is for
two reasons: a) we're too lazy to write any, and b) it's really hard. b)
obviously has significant implications for a). ;)

less flippantly, it's almost impossible to quantify blocker-ness in
terms flexible enough to cover all cases, but rigid enough to be of any
actual use in objective evaluation (as opposed to just coming down to a
subjective judgment call, which is what we currently use).

We have a fairly solid definition for *Alpha* blockers - only 'high' or
'urgent' severity bugs in critical path components - but even that
requires occasional exceptions, and the higher standard required of Beta
and final releases makes it harder to define blocker-ness.

So, short story, right now it's a judgment call. I'd certainly judge
that this bug is a _final release_ blocker. Whether it's a beta blocker
is a trickier call. We'll make sure to cover it in the meeting on Friday
to see what everyone thinks.

The two main ways to propose something as a blocker: show up to the
meeting and raise it, or simply set it as one (as someone's done for
this bug already - it's been set as a final release blocker at present)
and it'll automatically get looked at during the meeting. If the
consensus at the meeting is that it isn't a blocker, it'll be dropped
(with an explanation).

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net