Blockers via flags?

Jesse Keating jkeating at
Fri May 21 16:56:30 UTC 2010

On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 01:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > A solution, flags!
> Well, we should carefully consider the disadvantages of that change.

Which is why I posted it to the list, for discussion.

>  For 
> example, one thing we will lose with a flag-based solution is the 
> transitiveness of blocking a tracker bug. So we'd lose the KDE, X11, kernel 
> etc. trackers or at least not have their dependencies show up in the blocker 
> reports. Instead, they'd all have to be nominated as blockers explicitly 
> even if they're already on e.g. the KDE tracker. Whether this is a good 
> thing or a bad thing needs to be discussed, but this doesn't seem to have 
> come up in the discussion so far.
>         Kevin Kofler

There is no reason I see that you cannot still use a KDE, X11, Kernel,
et al tracker for issues important to those various subgroups.  Issues
within those trackers can individually promoted to full blocker status,
whereas others may remain "would be nice to have" items.  Even with the
current tree of blockers, qa/releng/devel still went over the items on
the sub-blockers and reviewed each one for "blocker or not" status.

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the devel mailing list