FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-02-2010, 10:07 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default i386-class support changed in F-13?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 23:54 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:43:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 09:13 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > > This issue points out a gap in our QA testing.
> >
> > Indeed, although there are _many_ gaps in our QA testing, and this is
> > not news. =) We don't have the resources to test anywhere close to
> > everything. The extent of claimed CPU arch support is just one of the
> > things we're not equipped to test...
> >
> > (It does kind of surprise me that _no-one_ at OLPC managed to notice
> > this before release, though. We do betas!)
>
> The bug report was there one week before the announcement of the beta:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838

Ah. It's a shame it wasn't put up for consideration as a release
blocker. Obviously the rather peremptory response from Jakub didn't help
with that...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 11:31 PM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default i386-class support changed in F-13?

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> Ah. It's a shame it wasn't put up for consideration as a release
> blocker. Obviously the rather peremptory response from Jakub didn't help
> with that...

Would the flag concept for blocker status that Jesse was championing
recently have helped in this situation. If the bug is closed with a
non fixed resolution, but flagged with request from the reporter to be
a blocker would this have provided a mechanism to escalate this issue
into a release management discussion that would have revisited the
issue and overturned Jakub's assessment of the situation? Or would
resolution as notabug have nullified a blocker request flag mechanism?

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 11:45 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default i386-class support changed in F-13?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ah. It's a shame it wasn't put up for consideration as a release
> > blocker. Obviously the rather peremptory response from Jakub didn't help
> > with that...
>
> Would the flag concept for blocker status that Jesse was championing
> recently have helped in this situation. If the bug is closed with a
> non fixed resolution, but flagged with request from the reporter to be
> a blocker would this have provided a mechanism to escalate this issue
> into a release management discussion that would have revisited the
> issue and overturned Jakub's assessment of the situation? Or would
> resolution as notabug have nullified a blocker request flag mechanism?

It's a bit intangible and not entirely predicated on whether we're using
the keyword or flag setup, I think. Currently when we're considering
bugs we use a search that excludes closed bugs, so even if you flag a
closed bug with F14Blocker or whatever, it won't get on the agenda for
the review meeting unless someone explicitly mentions it. I'm not sure
Jesse's proposed system necessarily makes any difference to that; even
if we're using flags, I don't think we'd automatically start doing
searches that included closed bugs. But of course, it might make sense
not to worry about the bug status with the more fine-grained info the
flag system would provide.

Now I've waffled a bit =) I think the ultimate answer is that it's
certainly _possible_ we could use the proposed flag system to consider
blocker status even for closed bugs, yeah.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 11:58 PM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default i386-class support changed in F-13?

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> It's a bit intangible and not entirely predicated on whether we're using
> the keyword or flag setup, I think. Currently when we're considering
> bugs we use a search that excludes closed bugs,

In either case, I would suggest that it may be best to just exclude
certain closed resolutions but review others. wontfix and notabug may
hide some potential blockers that are worthy of calm discussion with a
maintainer from a release management pov.


-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 03:38 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default i386-class support changed in F-13?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ah. It's a shame it wasn't put up for consideration as a release
> > blocker. Obviously the rather peremptory response from Jakub didn't help
> > with that...
>
> Would the flag concept for blocker status that Jesse was championing
> recently have helped in this situation. If the bug is closed with a
> non fixed resolution, but flagged with request from the reporter to be
> a blocker would this have provided a mechanism to escalate this issue
> into a release management discussion that would have revisited the
> issue and overturned Jakub's assessment of the situation? Or would
> resolution as notabug have nullified a blocker request flag mechanism?

I don't see why the means to overturn a NOTABUG resolution should be
coupled to the blocker status. If I were the reporter, I would first
reopen the bug. If the maintainer continues to close it with unhelpful
comments, I would raise the issue on the devel list to build support for
my position or find out if there's a better way to address the issue. I
assume the ultimate way to appeal a bad decision is to place the issue
on the FESCo agenda, though I have never done that myself.

Once it is established that the bug is valid and will be kept open, it
can be considered as a blocker like any other bug.

--
Matt


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 04:33 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default i386-class support changed in F-13?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:58 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> > It's a bit intangible and not entirely predicated on whether we're using
> > the keyword or flag setup, I think. Currently when we're considering
> > bugs we use a search that excludes closed bugs,
>
> In either case, I would suggest that it may be best to just exclude
> certain closed resolutions but review others. wontfix and notabug may
> hide some potential blockers that are worthy of calm discussion with a
> maintainer from a release management pov.

That sounds like a good idea to me, thanks.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org