Release-critical bug process?
jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Feb 11 17:33:55 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:33 -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> Jesse Keating said the following on 02/11/2009 09:21 AM Pacific Time:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:18 -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> >> Nothing is worse than spending several hours triaging bugs to a blocker
> >> list only to find out that the blocker list isn't being used or that the
> >> release has been deemed "done enough" and has gone to the mirrors. I
> >> know every bit helps, but it is still demoralizing.
> > While I agree to an extent, just because we chose not to fix the bug
> > before the release, doesn't mean that the bug shouldn't be fixed. The
> > efforts put in won't be in vain at all, it just may take a little bit
> > more time before the return on investment.
> My core issue is not knowing a decision has been made about the quality
> of a release and how that decision was arrived at. We talk a lot about
> transparency in decision making in Fedora. I think it applies here too :)
I'll also note that being head-down working on a bug and missing an IRC
conversation is not that far off from being head-down working on a bug
and missing an email that went by (:
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20090211/8feccd04/attachment.bin
More information about the test