On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 09:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:48:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties
> (usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must
> be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a
> 'conditional' violation of the release criteria. At least the following
> will almost always be relevant:
>
> * The severity and likely prevalence of the bug
> * Whether the bug could, or should, have been discovered earlier
> * How long the release in question has already been delayed
> * Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out
> other desirable work
> * The possible effects of the expected delay (to Fedora itself, and
> also to other things influenced by Fedora's schedules, including
> downstream projects)
For "could, or should, have been discovered earlier", there's also
"raised as a blocker earlier". There were a couple this time around
that actually had bugs filed but we didn't prioritize them until the
last minute.
Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or
something that also affects the current release (either as released or
with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation
but isn't a regression *and* we're running late, using further release
delay as a forcing function feels like cutting off our nose to spite
our face.
Both good points and in line with current practice, will add to a later
draft. Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net