Review of Fedora 18 Release Criteria

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:17:41 -0400,
   David Cantrell <dcantrell at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>You're not understanding what I was pointing out.  The blocker criteria
>between alpha and beta should be more open than the blocker criteria between
>beta and rc.  The idea is that we start accepting fewer bugs as blockers as
>we get closer to RC.  Every problem encountered can be evaluated along the
>lines of:

The point of accepting fewer things as blockers for alpha and beta is to 
enable those to be released to help find bugs. And we don't want to hold 
them up for things that are not things we want final to have, but that 
don't interfere with testing too much.

>1) Who is impacted?
>2) Is there a workaround?
>3) Is the workaround documented?
>4) Is the problem in the standard install path?
>
>And so on.  I'm not saying we should compromise on release quality or
>anything like that, but just start to ask more and more questions when
>proposed blockers show up late.  Is it really a blocker or not.

I disagree that we want to look at lateness as a critera for blockers. (It 
does get some consideration for the nice to have designation.) I think 
the kinds of bugs that lateness would be a consideration for, are not the 
kinds of bugs we want to classify as blockers.