i386-class support changed in F-13?
awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Jun 2 23:45:31 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ah. It's a shame it wasn't put up for consideration as a release
> > blocker. Obviously the rather peremptory response from Jakub didn't help
> > with that...
> Would the flag concept for blocker status that Jesse was championing
> recently have helped in this situation. If the bug is closed with a
> non fixed resolution, but flagged with request from the reporter to be
> a blocker would this have provided a mechanism to escalate this issue
> into a release management discussion that would have revisited the
> issue and overturned Jakub's assessment of the situation? Or would
> resolution as notabug have nullified a blocker request flag mechanism?
It's a bit intangible and not entirely predicated on whether we're using
the keyword or flag setup, I think. Currently when we're considering
bugs we use a search that excludes closed bugs, so even if you flag a
closed bug with F14Blocker or whatever, it won't get on the agenda for
the review meeting unless someone explicitly mentions it. I'm not sure
Jesse's proposed system necessarily makes any difference to that; even
if we're using flags, I don't think we'd automatically start doing
searches that included closed bugs. But of course, it might make sense
not to worry about the bug status with the more fine-grained info the
flag system would provide.
Now I've waffled a bit =) I think the ultimate answer is that it's
certainly _possible_ we could use the proposed flag system to consider
blocker status even for closed bugs, yeah.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel