On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 16:36 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
#2 MOAR METADATA
The alternative is to make the existing Blocker trackers do more work.
In this model we wouldn't add any new tracker bugs; we'd just add new
'magic words' in the Whiteboard field. Right now, an accepted blocker
is identified by the string 'AcceptedBlocker' appearing in the
whiteboard field. We could simply add some more magical strings like
that: 'Accepted0Day' and 'AcceptedStable', say (better suggestions
I kind of like this idea as it's less change and involves creating
fewer new bugs. We'd have to make some changes to blockerbugs either
way - tflink can say if either approach would be more work in
blockerbugs, but I'm gonna guess they'd be fairly similar.
Hi again folks!
So it sounds like this option was preferred by everyone who expressed a
preference, and it's my choice too, so I figure we should just go for
I think we still have some more research/discussion/co-ordination to do
before we can propose changes to the release process (especially the
go/no-go process) to 'enforce' special blockers, but I think we can go
ahead and implement the *tracking* side of the changes now. So I'm
gonna propose that we add these new terms for the Whiteboard field:
Accepted0Day (for bugs where the fix must appear in 0-day updates for
the new release)
AcceptedStable (for bugs where the fix must appear in updates for the
previous stable release(s) by release day of the new release)
I'm not 100% married to either of those, especially the second. If
anyone has a better idea, please send it!
Once we decide on the terms, the next step would be to edit the blocker
- the changes shouldn't be too onerous - and to update blockerbugs for
the new world order. I know tflink has a lot on his plate, so I might
take a cut at that to try and save him the work.
Comments, thoughts, questions as always - thanks folks!
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net