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!