Review request: Nice-to-have bug process documentation proposal

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 17:05 -0400, James Laska wrote:

> Oh your right.  Lemme rethink if there is a better way to articulate my
> thoughts.  I was searching for a generic way to say, potentially
> disruptive changes to core packages aren't a good fit for NTH.  The NTH
> xorg bug#596557 discussed during the blocker meeting [1] being a good
> example.  
> 
> I'll see if there's a way to rephrase my proposal to be more accurate.

The principles already mention this:

"and for which the fix is reasonably small and testable (this
consideration becomes progressively more important as a release nears,
so bugs may be downgraded from nice-to-have status late in the release
process if it transpires that the fix is complex and hard to test)"

it's always been a trade-off between how much benefit we get from taking
the fix and how complex and potentially dangerous the fix is; I tried to
encapsulate that in the principles.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net