Blocker process: tracker bug / whiteboard naming proposal

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Tue Jan 22 20:23:01 UTC 2013

On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 14:19 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02:09 -0800,
>    Adam Williamson <awilliam at> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:09 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> >2. (bwolff) "I think we can live without prefixes for the whiteboard.
> >There could be cases where a bug is freezeexception for alpha and
> >blocker for beta, but those could be handled by not marking the state
> >for past the next type of release. The simplicity of naming probably
> >gains more than the extra effort needed for a few bugs."
> >
> >Assuming you mean 'suffixes' not 'prefixes' - so your proposal is just
> >to use Accepted and Rejected - then again, I don't like that. "There
> >could be cases" where a bug has multiple states is putting it much too
> >weakly - there are such cases, a lot of such cases, it's something we do
> >all the time. We can't just handwave it away. I don't think the
> >'simplicity' of Accepted vs. AcceptedBlocker is worth that at all. In
> >fact, a whiteboard field which just says 'Accepted' is probably more
> >confusing than one which says 'AcceptedBlocker', if you don't know the
> >process.
> I was suggesting not using 'alpha' or 'beta' in the whiteboard names. But 
> perhaps I was confusing the blocker aliases with the whiteboard names and 
> we aren't using alpha or beta in those now.

Aha. Yes, that's right, the WB names don't have the milestone in them.
The current ones are AcceptedBlocker and AcceptedNTH, the new proposed
ones are AcceptedBlocker and AcceptedFreezeException. And the 'Rejected'
equivalents, of course. So yup, we're all good there.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | adamwfedora

More information about the test mailing list