Release-critical bug process?

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:33 -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> Jesse Keating said the following on 02/11/2009 09:21 AM Pacific Time:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:18 -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> >>  Nothing is worse than spending several hours triaging bugs to a blocker 
> >> list only to find out that the blocker list isn't being used or that the 
> >> release has been deemed "done enough" and has gone to the mirrors.  I 
> >> know every bit helps, but it is still demoralizing.
> > 
> > While I agree to an extent, just because we chose not to fix the bug
> > before the release, doesn't mean that the bug shouldn't be fixed.  The
> > efforts put in won't be in vain at all, it just may take a little bit
> > more time before the return on investment.
> > 
> > 
> 
> My core issue is not knowing a decision has been made about the quality 
> of a release and how that decision was arrived at.  We talk a lot about 
> transparency in decision making in Fedora.  I think it applies here too :)
> 
> John

I'll also note that being head-down working on a bug and missing an IRC
conversation is not that far off from being head-down working on a bug
and missing an email that went by (:

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090211/8feccd04/attachment.sig>