Hi, folks!
So, during the blocker review process in the last few cycles, we have several times come up against the unfortunate situation that a bug that in the usual course of events would block a release is discovered extremely late - say the day before the go/no-go meeting - and at least some folks have argued that it's sometimes appropriate to not block the release in this case.
This position has gained quite a bit of acceptance, and we agreed at the F26 Final go/no-go meeting to draft up some formal policy for this so we can make such decisions consistently and not in an ad hoc way that might lead to it becoming a loophole that gets abused.
So, here's my proposal for that. The actual guts of the 'review blockers' process are kind of split between https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting , so we could kinda document this in either, but my preference is for the former. I propose we add a new section to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , called 'Exceptional cases' or similar, as a sub-section of the 'Reviewing blocker bugs' section. This is my proposed text. Note that it also covers another type of case we have occasionally come across in the past, but similarly never specifically formulated.
##################
=== Exceptional cases ===
Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.
However, as explained in the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life cycle page]] and the [[Fedora_Release_Criteria#Release_Constraints|release criteria]], we consider Fedora's release process not to be strictly based on time ''or'' strictly based on quality, but to take both into consideration. This can mean that, in some exceptional circumstances, we may agree that a bug constitutes a sufficient violation of the release criteria that it would ordinarily be accepted as a blocker bug for the next milestone release, but in fact accept it as a blocker bug for a later milestone release.
There are currently two established circumstances in which this may occur.
Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug can possibly be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to be made. For instance, fixing the bug may be a task of such technical complexity that it cannot possibly be achieved for several weeks or months, and it may be held that such a delay would be too disruptive to Fedora's development to be justified.
Secondly, it may occur if the bug is discovered very late in the release validation process. Sometimes, a relatively less important blocker bug (such as a non-vital default installed application on a release-blocking medium failing to run, for instance) may only be found very near the end of the release validation process, too late for it to be reasonably possible to fix it without delaying the release. Again, we may make the determination that in such a case it is preferable to go ahead with the release rather than delay it to fix such a late- discovered bug.
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)
It is expected that in almost 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this 'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).
#################
That's a bit wordy (suggestions for cutting it down are appreciated!), but I think it covers all the salient points. Thoughts? Concerns? Suggestions? Thanks!
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.
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!
The proposal sounds fine.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
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.
I'm not in favor of this one. Too many important bugs have been waived in the past (even those easily fixable) just because "it's not a new bug". I don't see why it should matter. Sure, we can use the existing data to better estimate the impact (how often people complain about this, bug duplicates, etc). But that's just better input data. It should not affect the decision process. Or is the thinking process something like "users are already used to suffer from this bug, and perhaps can even work around it, so we don't need to try that hard to fix it"? I don't agree to that.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
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.
I'm not in favor of this one. Too many important bugs have been waived in the past (even those easily fixable) just because "it's not a new bug". I don't see why it should matter. Sure, we can use the existing data to better estimate the impact (how often people complain about this, bug duplicates, etc). But that's just better input data. It should not affect the decision process. Or is the thinking process something like "users are already used to suffer from this bug, and perhaps can even work around it, so we don't need to try that hard to fix it"? I don't agree to that.
We should definitely fix these things. I just think that delaying the release is a very big hammer -- in a case where maybe a hammer isn't even called for. Delaying the release means that users are denied all sorts of other improvements, and developers can't get their stuff in the hands of users. The release delay itself doesn't _help_ the fix in any way. We're just using it as a forcing function, and I think that causes more problems than it actually solves.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
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.
I'm not in favor of this one. Too many important bugs have been waived in the past (even those easily fixable) just because "it's not a new bug". I don't see why it should matter. Sure, we can use the existing data to better estimate the impact (how often people complain about this, bug duplicates, etc). But that's just better input data. It should not affect the decision process. Or is the thinking process something like "users
are
already used to suffer from this bug, and perhaps can even work around
it,
so we don't need to try that hard to fix it"? I don't agree to that.
We should definitely fix these things. I just think that delaying the release is a very big hammer -- in a case where maybe a hammer isn't even called for. Delaying the release means that users are denied all sorts of other improvements, and developers can't get their stuff in the hands of users. The release delay itself doesn't _help_ the fix in any way. We're just using it as a forcing function, and I think that causes more problems than it actually solves.
And I agree with you, perhaps with one small exception. It depends on your definition of "help", but the delay *is* sometimes effective in a sense that without the delay (and the force function), the fix would not appear fast (in stable updates shortly after release) or even at all. It is not a good way to approach things, but I don't see many other options. Developers' time is limited and blocker bugs do set project priorities. I agree that it should definitely be used very conservatively.
But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand is why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new bugs. What is the rationale? And if you want to treat them differently, then how? Because if we accept new problem A as a blocker, but waive problem B because it has already existed for some time, even though they have completely equal impact on users, then without any other means to push for B resolution during the lifetime of the fedora release, it's very likely that the problem will not get fixed. Do you see PrioritizedBugs as an efficient way to help this? Or something else?
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand is why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new bugs. What is the rationale? And if you want to treat them differently, then how?
I think they're *clearly* different when it comes to delaying the release. If a bug is not currently affecting anyone, delaying stops it from becoming a user problem. If a bug is already a user problem, delaying doesn't help those people — and just hurts everyone else who would benefit from the release.
Because if we accept new problem A as a blocker, but waive problem B because it has already existed for some time, even though they have completely equal impact on users, then without any other means to push for B resolution during the lifetime of the fedora release, it's very likely that the problem will not get fixed. Do you see PrioritizedBugs as an efficient way to help this? Or something else?
Prioritized Bugs is one avenue. I'm open to other suggestions. I think in general packagers and maintainers *do* care about the kinds of bugs that are likely to be in this situation.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand
is
why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new bugs. What is the rationale? And if you want to treat them differently, then
how?
I think they're *clearly* different when it comes to delaying the release. If a bug is not currently affecting anyone, delaying stops it from becoming a user problem. If a bug is already a user problem, delaying doesn't help those people — and just hurts everyone else who would benefit from the release.
I'd argue that it does help - the bug gets fixed. The cost is maybe delaying the release (if the bug is accepted as a blocker way ahead of the milestone), or surely delaying the release (if the bug is accepted as a blocker close to the milestone). The alternative is rejecting the blocker right off the bat, which means the bug maybe gets fixed.
However, I think I misread your comment. I believed you're proposing we reject bugs existing in stable releases as blockers at any point of the development cycle. But you seem to have suggested we do this only if they're discovered very shortly before the milestone deadline. Is that correct? If so, I'm sorry for the confusion. In this case, I don't really have a problem with this - it's the same approach as for any other bug discovered a few hours before release. The impact is taken into consideration, the difficulty of the fix is taken into consideration, and also whether it already affects stable releases is taken into consideration (why not, sure). If the bug is not critical, it's either pushed to the next milestone, or pushed to the next release. That makes sense to me. If this is the way it's formulated, I don't have a problem with it.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
However, I think I misread your comment. I believed you're proposing we reject bugs existing in stable releases as blockers at any point of the development cycle. But you seem to have suggested we do this only if they're discovered very shortly before the milestone deadline. Is that correct? If so, I'm sorry for the confusion. In this case, I don't really
Yes, correct. :)
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks!
<snip>
So there was some great feedback on the first version of this proposal; here's the second draft, with all the suggestions considered and applied. Note, given the misunderstanding between Kamil and Matt, I added a little paragraph to specifically clarify that the list of factors to consider really is just a list of things to *consider*, not a checklist of criteria that we apply unthinkingly.
As I explained in the first mail, the proposal is to add a section to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , called "Exceptional cases", as a sub-section of the 'Reviewing blocker bugs' section. Here is the revised proposal for how the new section should read:
##################
=== Exceptional cases ===
Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.
However, as explained in the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life cycle page]] and the [[Fedora_Release_Criteria#Release_Constraints|release criteria]], we consider Fedora's release process not to be strictly based on time ''or'' strictly based on quality, but to take both into consideration. This can mean that, in some exceptional circumstances, we may agree that a bug constitutes a sufficient violation of the release criteria that it would ordinarily be accepted as a blocker bug for the next milestone release, but in fact accept it as a blocker bug for a later milestone release.
There are currently two established circumstances in which this may occur.
Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug can be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to be made.
Secondly, it may occur if the bug is discovered and/or proposed as a blocker very late in the release validation process. Sometimes, a relatively less important blocker bug (such as a non-vital default installed application on a release-blocking medium failing to run, for instance) may only be found very near the end of the release validation process, too late for it to be reasonably possible to fix it without delaying the release. Again, we may make the determination that in such a case it is preferable to go ahead with the release rather than delay it to fix such a late-discovered bug.
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 and/or proposed as a blocker earlier * Whether the bug affects the existing stable releases (if it does, there is generally less benefit to be had by delaying the new release) * 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)
Note that these factors should be carefully and intelligently considered on a case-by-case basis. This isn't a checklist; we cannot just say "oh, that bug existed in the previous release, therefore it's not a blocker, done". It's just a list of some of the factors we typically ''consider'' in making this determination.
It is expected that in almost all 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this 'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).
#################
Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the Blocker bug process with your proposal.
And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with 0day bugs found at the last moment before release ? Should not we have a statement for Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers saying that such bugs need to be verified and have enough karma before relevant Go/No-Go meeting ? My question is base on the experience we made during F26 release cycle, when we stopped already running mirroring of a release as we realized the 0day fix will not be ready at the release day. Having such a statement (and follow it) might save the effort especially RelEng is putting into the release activities after Go/No-Go meeting.
Regards, Jan
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks!
<snip>
So there was some great feedback on the first version of this proposal; here's the second draft, with all the suggestions considered and applied. Note, given the misunderstanding between Kamil and Matt, I added a little paragraph to specifically clarify that the list of factors to consider really is just a list of things to *consider*, not a checklist of criteria that we apply unthinkingly.
As I explained in the first mail, the proposal is to add a section to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , called "Exceptional cases", as a sub-section of the 'Reviewing blocker bugs' section. Here is the revised proposal for how the new section should read:
##################
=== Exceptional cases ===
Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.
However, as explained in the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life cycle page]] and the [[Fedora_Release_Criteria#Release_Constraints|release criteria]], we consider Fedora's release process not to be strictly based on time ''or'' strictly based on quality, but to take both into consideration. This can mean that, in some exceptional circumstances, we may agree that a bug constitutes a sufficient violation of the release criteria that it would ordinarily be accepted as a blocker bug for the next milestone release, but in fact accept it as a blocker bug for a later milestone release.
There are currently two established circumstances in which this may occur.
Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug can be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to be made.
Secondly, it may occur if the bug is discovered and/or proposed as a blocker very late in the release validation process. Sometimes, a relatively less important blocker bug (such as a non-vital default installed application on a release-blocking medium failing to run, for instance) may only be found very near the end of the release validation process, too late for it to be reasonably possible to fix it without delaying the release. Again, we may make the determination that in such a case it is preferable to go ahead with the release rather than delay it to fix such a late-discovered bug.
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 and/or
proposed as a blocker earlier
- Whether the bug affects the existing stable releases (if it does,
there is generally less benefit to be had by delaying the new release)
- 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)
Note that these factors should be carefully and intelligently considered on a case-by-case basis. This isn't a checklist; we cannot just say "oh, that bug existed in the previous release, therefore it's not a blocker, done". It's just a list of some of the factors we typically ''consider'' in making this determination.
It is expected that in almost all 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this 'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).
#################
Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the Blocker bug process with your proposal.
And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with 0day bugs found at the last moment before release ? Should not we have a statement for Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers saying that such bugs need to be verified and have enough karma before relevant Go/No-Go meeting ? My question is base on the experience we made during F26 release cycle, when we stopped already running mirroring of a release as we realized the 0day fix will not be ready at the release day. Having such a statement (and follow it) might save the effort especially RelEng is putting into the release activities after Go/No-Go meeting.
I think we could certainly stand to clarify the exact requirements around Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers, yes. AFAIK all we have for now is this in the blocker process SOP page:
"Accepted0Day is used for cases where the fix does not need to appear in the final frozen release, but must be available as an update on release day. AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix must appear as an update for one or more stable releases."
And we're definitely missing some written-down policy about exactly when the updates must be in exactly what state. I think we can do that separately from this, though. I've got a lot on my plate ATM so it'd be great if someone else could do this draft - perhaps you or Kamil (as I know he's been interested in the question before)?
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks!
<snip>
So there was some great feedback on the first version of this proposal; here's the second draft, with all the suggestions considered and applied. Note, given the misunderstanding between Kamil and Matt, I added a little paragraph to specifically clarify that the list of factors to consider really is just a list of things to *consider*, not a checklist of criteria that we apply unthinkingly.
As I explained in the first mail, the proposal is to add a section to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , called "Exceptional cases", as a sub-section of the 'Reviewing blocker bugs' section. Here is the revised proposal for how the new section should read:
##################
=== Exceptional cases ===
Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.
However, as explained in the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life cycle page]] and the [[Fedora_Release_Criteria#Release_Constraints|release criteria]], we consider Fedora's release process not to be strictly based on time ''or'' strictly based on quality, but to take both into consideration. This can mean that, in some exceptional circumstances, we may agree that a bug constitutes a sufficient violation of the release criteria that it would ordinarily be accepted as a blocker bug for the next milestone release, but in fact accept it as a blocker bug for a later milestone release.
There are currently two established circumstances in which this may occur.
Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug can be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to be made.
Secondly, it may occur if the bug is discovered and/or proposed as a blocker very late in the release validation process. Sometimes, a relatively less important blocker bug (such as a non-vital default installed application on a release-blocking medium failing to run, for instance) may only be found very near the end of the release validation process, too late for it to be reasonably possible to fix it without delaying the release. Again, we may make the determination that in such a case it is preferable to go ahead with the release rather than delay it to fix such a late-discovered bug.
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 and/or
proposed as a blocker earlier
- Whether the bug affects the existing stable releases (if it does,
there is generally less benefit to be had by delaying the new release)
- 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)
Note that these factors should be carefully and intelligently considered on a case-by-case basis. This isn't a checklist; we cannot just say "oh, that bug existed in the previous release, therefore it's not a blocker, done". It's just a list of some of the factors we typically ''consider'' in making this determination.
LGTM
It is expected that in almost all 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this 'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).
I wonder if we should provide a recommendation here - whether to target the next milestone, or the equivalent milestone by default. Otherwise we spend time discussing this each time (as we did during F26 cycle).
I think the more correct approach is to target the equivalent milestone. But it also has higher demands on our team - we can't simply rely on the dev team remembering this very important bug, otherwise we might find ourselves at the very same situation for FN+1 Final milestone, just because the dev team forgot about it. So we need to remind them and ask for status regularly. There is more area for error when targeting the next milestone (even if we found out the dev team forgot about it for Beta and we failed to remind them, there's still some time until Final), but it's slightly more unfair to the dev team (the compose might not originally require the bugfix to be present at such early milestone).
So, to save these discussions from re-occurring, maybe we could "pre-compute" the recommended approach? :)
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Adam Williamson < adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the Blocker bug process with your proposal.
And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with 0day bugs found at the last moment before release ? Should not we have a statement for Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers saying that such bugs need to be verified and have enough karma before relevant Go/No-Go meeting ? My question is base on the experience we made during F26 release cycle, when we stopped already running mirroring of a release as we realized the 0day fix will not be ready at the release day. Having such a statement (and follow it) might save the effort especially RelEng is putting into the release activities after Go/No-Go meeting.
I think we could certainly stand to clarify the exact requirements around Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers, yes. AFAIK all we have for now is this in the blocker process SOP page:
"Accepted0Day is used for cases where the fix does not need to appear in the final frozen release, but must be available as an update on release day. AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix must appear as an update for one or more stable releases."
And we're definitely missing some written-down policy about exactly when the updates must be in exactly what state. I think we can do that separately from this, though. I've got a lot on my plate ATM so it'd be great if someone else could do this draft - perhaps you or Kamil (as I know he's been interested in the question before)?
I tried to discuss this topic in the past wrt AcceptedPreviousRelease, and I didn't receive many responses from relevant people. From what I did receive, I created this description (part of the official SOP, so it should be "in production"): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Tracking_AcceptedP...
It might seem that this only discusses when to close AcceptedPreviousRelease bugs. However, having all blocker bugs closed is a prerequisite to voting "Go". So this is effectively a policy of how to handle AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers state during Go/NoGo. The key sentence describing the required state is:
"Only when it is guaranteed that MirrorManager refers only to the push containing the fixed package or newer pushes, we should mark this bug as *CLOSED ERRATA*. "
And track-previous-release-blocker.py script implements that (it's quite tedious to check that manually). I guess we could use the same approach (and the same script) even for Accepted0Day. I'm not exactly sure how 'updates' repo is handled before Go, whether some people with older repos can get older metadata not containing the required fix. If it is guaranteed that 'updates' repo on release day is always up-to-day for all users (i.e. it's the very push to that repo, no older metadata references are in repomd.xml), it's even easier to check the state - just make sure the fix is in updates-pending tag and we're good to go.
-
Adam Williamson -
Jan Kurik -
Kamil Paral -
Matthew Miller