On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
QA referred the question of whether upgrades from a release where i686
was 'release blocking' (<24) to releases where i686 is 'non blocking'
(>23) should be considered 'release blocking' to FESCo. i.e. if there
are violations of the release criteria in this upgrade path, should we
treat that as blocking the Beta or Final releases. FESCo's decision was
"no".
So no matter what, all i686 images (qcow2, raw, ISOs) are non-blocking.
Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all primary
archs, because i686 is a primary arch. And a failed build means it
won't be tagged for compose so depending on the package it could hold
up composes.
But the current i686 problems aren't package build failures, rather
it's a particular critical path package (or two) that are broadly or
entirely non-functional when executed. So what's it called when a
critical path package fails to function on a primary arch? And what's
done about it?
From my limited perspective, such non-functional failure held up
release when it violated a release criterion in effect because that
non-functionality became coupled with image blocking, i.e. if kernel
doesn't function, then image doesn't function/is DOA, DOA images are a
release criteria violation, therefore block. Correct? Or is there some
terminology nuance here that I'm still missing in the sequence?
I really think it would help if we use these terms carefully and
precisely, and if we're going to re-define them in any way, make that
clear and explicit.
It's best to assume I don't understand the terms well enough to use
them precisely, rather than assume I'm trying to redefine them.
--
Chris Murphy