In an attempt to get the proposed blocker list down to a more manageable size, I went through all of the currently proposed blockers in attempt to classify them into sub-lists.
- clear +1 - clear -1 - Need Information - Needs discussion in meeting - Needs more testing
Obviously, this is all based on my opinion and I'm not trying to tell anyone how to vote. I'm just attempting to highlight the easier calls so that we can focus on voting in-bug for those and have fewer bugs to review during the blocker review meetings.
I've listed the bugs that I think are easier +/- 1 below and I'll send out another email with the blockers that need testing. I've already commented on the bugs I think need more information and will try to make sure that they're ready for review.
If you have time, please go through these bugs and vote for blocker status (not just gut feeling, though. All nasty bugs are not necessarily release blocking bugs) so we can get some of them off the proposed list.
Tim
============================================================ Clear +1 Blocker ============================================================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868558 * The installer must be able to use all supported local and remote package source options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876716 * The installer must be able to use all supported local and remote package source options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879187 * The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and either NFS or NFSISO remote package source options.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877576 * All critical path actions on release-blocking desktop environments should correctly display all sufficiently complete translations available for use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846908 * All applications listed under the Applications menu or category must start successfully
============================================================ Clear -1 Blocker ============================================================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868421 * doesn't clearly violate any of the F18 release criteria and could be fixed post-release with an update. * see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861123
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870632 * doesn't clearly violate any of the F18 release criteria and could be fixed post-release with an update.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873220 * prevents binary graphics drivers from rpmfusion from working * doesn't hit any release criteria, can be worked around in most cases by not using the binary drivers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876308 * Doesn't violate any release criteria, could be fixed with an update post-release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868220 * user is mostly logged out, there are workarounds, could be fixed with an update, only affects fallback
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861699 * Doesn't seem to affect much hardware, could be fixed with an update
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879295 * It looks bad but it doesn't interfere with the upgrade process and I can't see blocking release if this was the last blocker left
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811964 * preupgrade isn't a valid upgrade mechanism for F18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833033 * classified as "moderate" which is less severe than "important" and thus, is not a blocker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874702 * classified as "moderate" which is less severe than "important" and thus, is not a blocker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860789 * nasty but doesn't affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861106 * Doesn't affect primary laptop display, doesn't seem to violate any criteria and could be fixed with an update post-release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861960 * Doesn't appear to violate any release criteria and could be fixed with an update post-release
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 14:24 -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
In an attempt to get the proposed blocker list down to a more manageable size, I went through all of the currently proposed blockers in attempt to classify them into sub-lists.
- clear +1
- clear -1
- Need Information
- Needs discussion in meeting
- Needs more testing
Obviously, this is all based on my opinion and I'm not trying to tell anyone how to vote. I'm just attempting to highlight the easier calls so that we can focus on voting in-bug for those and have fewer bugs to review during the blocker review meetings.
I've listed the bugs that I think are easier +/- 1 below and I'll send out another email with the blockers that need testing. I've already commented on the bugs I think need more information and will try to make sure that they're ready for review.
If you have time, please go through these bugs and vote for blocker status (not just gut feeling, though. All nasty bugs are not necessarily release blocking bugs) so we can get some of them off the proposed list.
For the record we've kind of evolved a convention in the last two or three releases where apparently uncontroversial bugs that get 3 +1s or 3 -1s in the bug can be accepted/rejected on that basis. Strictly we should aim for that to be 1 QA, 1 releng, 1 devel rather than just total-of-3, but with this giant a pile of bugs, we need to get through them somehow.
Decisions can always be revisited if someone flags them up as questionable, of course - if you disagree with a decision made this way, just say so in the bug and we can remove the decision and bring it up in a meeting instead.
I'll draft some clarifications to the blocker/SOP policies to make it clear that votes can be done in-bug in this way. To me it's not so important whether votes happen in a meeting or in the bug, but it *is* important that they happen somewhere where they're formally recorded for later evaluation - so I don't think we should take votes from casual IRC conversation, because that's too hard to recover later.