Suggested Freeze Policy change for Fedora 22+

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at
Sun Nov 23 09:02:28 UTC 2014

Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> These new rules don't ban "preventing a slip", they attempt to eliminate
> the unreasonable demands we're putting on our volunteer QA team *every
> week during Freeze*. It's gotten out of hand and it's burning people
> out.
> The primary problem is that when we slip, there has never been a clear
> statement made about when exactly when the deadline is for devs to get
> their fixes in. Historically, devs have been operating under the
> assumption that as long as a package lands before the next Go/No-Go
> meeting, but that has failed to account for the time needed to create a
> new Test Compose (which takes approx. 8 hours right now) as well as time
> to have the QA team re-run the Release Validation tests (which takes an
> absolute minimum of 20 hours fueled by caffeine and adrenaline). This
> constant pause-then-panic situation is untenable and needs to be
> addressed.
> By instituting the above plan, we will be much more transparent about
> what the deadlines are for all participants (dev/maintainers, rel-eng
> and QA) and we relieve the latter two of some of their panicked efforts
> if we get to the Monday Blocker Review and it's clear that there is no
> realistic chance that the Thursday Go/No-Go will rule in favor.

I think our fundamental disagreement is that you believe that the rules will 
make developers come up with fixes faster, whereas I believe that we 
developers are already fixing things as fast as we can and the rules will 
only make Fedora releases slip more often.

        Kevin Kofler

More information about the devel mailing list