Release criteria updates: genericizing!

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

On 06/23/2011 12:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:07 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>
>> What should be done with nth bzs that were not resolved before 15 went
>> to press and have not been resolved with an update and are now present
>> in rawhide?  Should they be moved up in priority and/or automatically
>> added to the 16 blocker bz?
>>
>> An example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681582
>>
>> (BTW: 681582 probably should have been in the 15 release notes.)
>
> At present we intentionally don't do anything automatic with them: I
> don't think this is noted in the SOP (bad Adam!) but we discussed it
> before and came to the conclusion it was best to leave them alone and
> let interested parties update them manually. The idea is that if you're
> still concerned about such a bug, and know it's still valid in Rawhide,
> for you to re-propose it as NTH or Blocker for the next release. So, go
> ahead and do that for the bug in question :)


Ok, tho I wasn't really lobbying for my bug, but, rather, the concept in 
general.  It just seems to me that any bugs deemed nth but not fixed in 
time for release and aren't fixed in updates or rawhide by branching 
should at least be starting points for the next release.  I.e., the next 
release is better than the last, more reliable, more bug free, yada yada 
yada.  Sure there would be some subjectivity, but that is why we get the 
big bucks or spend spend the time. :-)


-- 
Regards,
OldFart