critera proposal/discussion: FESCo blockers
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Jul 2 21:24:22 UTC 2013
On 2013-06-21 10:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:01 -0700
> Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>> So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the form
>> 'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'. So
>> 'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be
>> Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and 'addressed'
>> as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work
>> around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it
>> - but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common
>> Sense (tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making
>> mechanism - majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at
>> least theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its
>> decision-making mechanism in future, and then the criterion would
>> need to be updated for no good reason. All that matters to the
>> blocker process is that 'FESCo Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by
>> which FESCo Deems things is out of scope.
> Sure. Works for me.
As there were no objections, I'm adding this to the Alpha page as I
create the F20 criteria pages. Thanks!
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the test