Proposal: "automatic blockers"

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 02/16/2013 02:34 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks. So here's another proposal from an idea that was mentioned 
> during the F18 cycle.
>
> There's a few types of blocker bug that are basically no-brainers; it 
> doesn't make a lot of sense to waste time in blocker meetings 
> discussing them, and more importantly, sometimes they show up and we 
> want to quickly accept them as blockers and get the fixes in, but we 
> have to try and track down three people to vote +1 before they can be 
> accepted.
>
> So I'm proposing we invent something called 'automatic blockers': a 
> list of bug types that can be declared AcceptedBlocker by any single 
> person in QA, releng or devel. That decision could of course be 
> challenged and changed if needed.
>
> The specific proposal is to add this section to 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , right 
> under "Reviewing blocker bugs":
>
> ************
>
> == Automatic blockers ==
>
> Certain types of bugs are considered ''automatic blockers''. These 
> bugs can be marked as AcceptedBlocker by any member of one of the 
> stakeholder groups without formal review. A comment should accompany 
> this change, explaining that it has been made under the ''automatic 
> blocker'' policy and linking to this section of this page. If anyone 
> believes that a bug has been incorrectly marked as AcceptedBlocker in 
> this way, they may propose that it be formally reviewed by appending a 
> comment to the bug or by raising it during a blocker review meeting. 
> The following types of bug are considered ''automatic blockers'':
>
> * Bugs which entirely prevent the composition of one or more of the 
> images required to be built for a currently-pending (pre-)release
> * Incorrect checksums present on any of the required TC/RC images 
> (failures of [[QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Checksums]])
> * Unresolved dependencies on the DVD image (failures of 
> [[QA:Testcase_Mediakit_Repoclosure]])
> * File conflicts between two packages on the DVD image without an 
> explicit Conflicts: tag (failures of 
> [[QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts]])
> * Complete failure of any required TC/RC image to boot at all - "DOA" 
> image (conditional failure is not an automatic blocker)
>
> ************
>
> Any thoughts on the general idea, or on the specific list of bug types 
> I came up with - any more to add to the list, or remove from it? I 
> don't want to make the list _too_ big, and it shouldn't include any 
> type of bug that could possibly _not_ be a blocker, we want it to be 
> only the completely, 100%, screaming obvious slam-dunks. The last 
> entry is a bit of a 'possible' in my mind, there's an argument for not 
> including it, as people might interpret it too widely. It's meant to 
> cover only the case where we build a TC/RC and it's utterly DOA: the 
> image just flat out fails to boot, for everyone, no matter what the 
> hardware or configuration, it's just dead.

The problem being that what is an automatic blocker to me is not an 
automatic blocker to you.

Case in point from last release cycle the regression I faced with radeon 
driver

JBG