On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Adam Williamson
Let's be clear about what we mean by 'waiving'. Actually I'd like to
avoid using that word at all (yes I know I did it once, I edited my
mail to take them out but missed one).
We are *not* 'waiving' the criterion. We are *not* deciding the bug
isn't a blocker. We are deciding to mark it as blocking the next
milestone instead of the current one.
OK yeah so it's a delayed blocker. That underscores the ISO maximum
size is probably a soft requirement for beta.
> Essentially, no one found it intuitively compelling or desirable
> actually block release, even though it's unquestionably a blocker.
> Since the bug is not blocking the release tells us it is in fact not a
> release blocking bug. It's a blocker in name only, in practice it's
> not. It's a contradiction, and thus hilarious.
But this would be the case for any bug we apply the 'last minute'
policy to. There is nothing specific to automatic blockers in anything
you write, yet we agreed the policy anyway, and AFAIR you +1ed it.
Yes, but that's only half of the hilarity. I also -1'd blocking on ISO size.
I'm just noting the contrast between highly objective nature of
automatic blockers, and the subjectivity injected by the last minute
policy. I really hadn't considered that particular combination.