i386-class support changed in F-13?

Matt McCutchen matt at mattmccutchen.net
Thu Jun 3 15:38:42 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?

I don't see why the means to overturn a NOTABUG resolution should be
coupled to the blocker status.  If I were the reporter, I would first
reopen the bug.  If the maintainer continues to close it with unhelpful
comments, I would raise the issue on the devel list to build support for
my position or find out if there's a better way to address the issue.  I
assume the ultimate way to appeal a bad decision is to place the issue
on the FESCo agenda, though I have never done that myself.

Once it is established that the bug is valid and will be kept open, it
can be considered as a blocker like any other bug.


More information about the devel mailing list