On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Adam Williamson adamwill@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.