Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Adam Williamson
Hi, folks!

So, during the blocker review process in the last few cycles, we have
several times come up against the unfortunate situation that a bug that
in the usual course of events would block a release is discovered
extremely late - say the day before the go/no-go meeting - and at least
some folks have argued that it's sometimes appropriate to not block the
release in this case.

This position has gained quite a bit of acceptance, and we agreed at
the F26 Final go/no-go meeting to draft up some formal policy for this
so we can make such decisions consistently and not in an ad hoc way
that might lead to it becoming a loophole that gets abused.

So, here's my proposal for that. The actual guts of the 'review
blockers' process are kind of split between
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting , so we could
kinda document this in either, but my preference is for the former. I
propose we add a new section to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , called
'Exceptional cases' or similar, as a sub-section of the 'Reviewing
blocker bugs' section. This is my proposed text. Note that it also
covers another type of case we have occasionally come across in the
past, but similarly never specifically formulated.

##################

=== Exceptional cases ===

Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the
[[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a
blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.

However, as explained in the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life
cycle page]] and the
[[Fedora_Release_Criteria#Release_Constraints|release criteria]], we
consider Fedora's release process not to be strictly based on time
''or'' strictly based on quality, but to take both into consideration.
This can mean that, in some exceptional circumstances, we may agree
that a bug constitutes a sufficient violation of the release criteria
that it would ordinarily be accepted as a blocker bug for the next
milestone release, but in fact accept it as a blocker bug for a later
milestone release.

There are currently two established circumstances in which this may
occur.

Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug
can possibly be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to
be made. For instance, fixing the bug may be a task of such technical
complexity that it cannot possibly be achieved for several weeks or
months, and it may be held that such a delay would be too disruptive to
Fedora's development to be justified.

Secondly, it may occur if the bug is discovered very late in the
release validation process. Sometimes, a relatively less important
blocker bug (such as a non-vital default installed application on a
release-blocking medium failing to run, for instance) may only be found
very near the end of the release validation process, too late for it to
be reasonably possible to fix it without delaying the release. Again,
we may make the determination that in such a case it is preferable to
go ahead with the release rather than delay it to fix such a late-
discovered bug.

All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties
(usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must
be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a
'conditional' violation of the release criteria. At least the following
will almost always be relevant:

* The severity and likely prevalence of the bug
* Whether the bug could, or should, have been discovered earlier
* How long the release in question has already been delayed
* Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out
other desirable work
* The possible effects of the expected delay (to Fedora itself, and
also to other things influenced by Fedora's schedules, including
downstream projects)

It is expected that in almost 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be
accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or
for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this
'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise
would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be
accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or
{{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).

#################

That's a bit wordy (suggestions for cutting it down are appreciated!),
but I think it covers all the salient points. Thoughts? Concerns?
Suggestions? Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 02:01 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:

>
> > Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug
> > can possibly be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to
> > be made. For instance, fixing the bug may be a task of such technical
> > complexity that it cannot possibly be achieved for several weeks or
> > months, and it may be held that such a delay would be too disruptive to
> > Fedora's development to be justified.
>
> "cannot possibly" — that's pretty strong words. I sure almost anything
> could be achieved in several months, if enough people banded up to do it.
> So I'd just keep the first sentence, without "possibly", and drop the
> rest of the paragraph. That'd cut down on the wordiness too.

Good point, thanks.

> > It is expected that in almost 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be
> > accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or
> > for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this
> > 'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise
> > would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be
> > accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or
> > {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).
>
> "almost" seems misplaced, or maybe you meant "almost all".

Indeed, you're exactly correct. Thank you.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Matthew Miller-2
In reply to this post by Adam Williamson
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:48:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties
> (usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must
> be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a
> 'conditional' violation of the release criteria. At least the following
> will almost always be relevant:
>
> * The severity and likely prevalence of the bug
> * Whether the bug could, or should, have been discovered earlier
> * How long the release in question has already been delayed
> * Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out
> other desirable work
> * The possible effects of the expected delay (to Fedora itself, and
> also to other things influenced by Fedora's schedules, including
> downstream projects)


For "could, or should, have been discovered earlier", there's also
"raised as a blocker earlier". There were a couple this time around
that actually had bugs filed but we didn't prioritize them until the
last minute.

Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or
something that also affects the current release (either as released or
with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation
but isn't a regression *and* we're running late, using further release
delay as a forcing function feels like cutting off our nose to spite
our face.


--
Matthew Miller
<[hidden email]>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 09:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:48:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties
> > (usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must
> > be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a
> > 'conditional' violation of the release criteria. At least the following
> > will almost always be relevant:
> >
> > * The severity and likely prevalence of the bug
> > * Whether the bug could, or should, have been discovered earlier
> > * How long the release in question has already been delayed
> > * Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out
> > other desirable work
> > * The possible effects of the expected delay (to Fedora itself, and
> > also to other things influenced by Fedora's schedules, including
> > downstream projects)
>
>
> For "could, or should, have been discovered earlier", there's also
> "raised as a blocker earlier". There were a couple this time around
> that actually had bugs filed but we didn't prioritize them until the
> last minute.
>
> Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or
> something that also affects the current release (either as released or
> with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation
> but isn't a regression *and* we're running late, using further release
> delay as a forcing function feels like cutting off our nose to spite
> our face.

Both good points and in line with current practice, will add to a later
draft. Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Kamil Paral
In reply to this post by Matthew Miller-2
The proposal sounds fine.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or
something that also affects the current release (either as released or
with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation
but isn't a regression *and* we're running late, using further release
delay as a forcing function feels like cutting off our nose to spite
our face.

I'm not in favor of this one. Too many important bugs have been waived in the past (even those easily fixable) just because "it's not a new bug". I don't see why it should matter. Sure, we can use the existing data to better estimate the impact (how often people complain about this, bug duplicates, etc). But that's just better input data. It should not affect the decision process. Or is the thinking process something like "users are already used to suffer from this bug, and perhaps can even work around it, so we don't need to try that hard to fix it"? I don't agree to that.


_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Matthew Miller-2
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:

> > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or
> > something that also affects the current release (either as released or
> > with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation
> > but isn't a regression *and* we're running late, using further release
> > delay as a forcing function feels like cutting off our nose to spite
> > our face.
> I'm not in favor of this one. Too many important bugs have been waived in
> the past (even those easily fixable) just because "it's not a new bug". I
> don't see why it should matter. Sure, we can use the existing data to
> better estimate the impact (how often people complain about this, bug
> duplicates, etc). But that's just better input data. It should not affect
> the decision process. Or is the thinking process something like "users are
> already used to suffer from this bug, and perhaps can even work around it,
> so we don't need to try that hard to fix it"? I don't agree to that.

We should definitely fix these things. I just think that delaying the
release is a very big hammer -- in a case where maybe a hammer isn't
even called for. Delaying the release means that users are denied all
sorts of other improvements, and developers can't get their stuff in
the hands of users. The release delay itself doesn't _help_ the fix in
any way. We're just using it as a forcing function, and I think that
causes more problems than it actually solves.


--
Matthew Miller
<[hidden email]>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Kamil Paral
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or
> > something that also affects the current release (either as released or
> > with updates)? If something is a clear-cut blocker criterion violation
> > but isn't a regression *and* we're running late, using further release
> > delay as a forcing function feels like cutting off our nose to spite
> > our face.
> I'm not in favor of this one. Too many important bugs have been waived in
> the past (even those easily fixable) just because "it's not a new bug". I
> don't see why it should matter. Sure, we can use the existing data to
> better estimate the impact (how often people complain about this, bug
> duplicates, etc). But that's just better input data. It should not affect
> the decision process. Or is the thinking process something like "users are
> already used to suffer from this bug, and perhaps can even work around it,
> so we don't need to try that hard to fix it"? I don't agree to that.

We should definitely fix these things. I just think that delaying the
release is a very big hammer -- in a case where maybe a hammer isn't
even called for. Delaying the release means that users are denied all
sorts of other improvements, and developers can't get their stuff in
the hands of users. The release delay itself doesn't _help_ the fix in
any way. We're just using it as a forcing function, and I think that
causes more problems than it actually solves.

And I agree with you, perhaps with one small exception. It depends on your definition of "help", but the delay *is* sometimes effective in a sense that without the delay (and the force function), the fix would not appear fast (in stable updates shortly after release) or even at all. It is not a good way to approach things, but I don't see many other options. Developers' time is limited and blocker bugs do set project priorities. I agree that it should definitely be used very conservatively.

But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand is why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new bugs. What is the rationale? And if you want to treat them differently, then how? Because if we accept new problem A as a blocker, but waive problem B because it has already existed for some time, even though they have completely equal impact on users, then without any other means to push for B resolution during the lifetime of the fedora release, it's very likely that the problem will not get fixed. Do you see PrioritizedBugs as an efficient way to help this? Or something else?


_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Matthew Miller-2
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand is
> why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new bugs.
> What is the rationale? And if you want to treat them differently, then how?

I think they're *clearly* different when it comes to delaying the
release. If a bug is not currently affecting anyone, delaying stops it
from becoming a user problem. If a bug is already a user problem,
delaying doesn't help those people — and just hurts everyone else who
would benefit from the release.


> Because if we accept new problem A as a blocker, but waive problem B
> because it has already existed for some time, even though they have
> completely equal impact on users, then without any other means to push for
> B resolution during the lifetime of the fedora release, it's very likely
> that the problem will not get fixed. Do you see PrioritizedBugs as an
> efficient way to help this? Or something else?

Prioritized Bugs is one avenue. I'm open to other suggestions. I think
in general packagers and maintainers *do* care about the kinds of bugs
that are likely to be in this situation.



--
Matthew Miller
<[hidden email]>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Kamil Paral
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matthew Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand is
> why you think existing bugs should be treated differently from new bugs.
> What is the rationale? And if you want to treat them differently, then how?

I think they're *clearly* different when it comes to delaying the
release. If a bug is not currently affecting anyone, delaying stops it
from becoming a user problem. If a bug is already a user problem,
delaying doesn't help those people — and just hurts everyone else who
would benefit from the release.

I'd argue that it does help - the bug gets fixed. The cost is maybe delaying the release (if the bug is accepted as a blocker way ahead of the milestone), or surely delaying the release (if the bug is accepted as a blocker close to the milestone). The alternative is rejecting the blocker right off the bat, which means the bug maybe gets fixed.

However, I think I misread your comment. I believed you're proposing we reject bugs existing in stable releases as blockers at any point of the development cycle. But you seem to have suggested we do this only if they're discovered very shortly before the milestone deadline. Is that correct? If so, I'm sorry for the confusion. In this case, I don't really have a problem with this - it's the same approach as for any other bug discovered a few hours before release. The impact is taken into consideration, the difficulty of the fix is taken into consideration, and also whether it already affects stable releases is taken into consideration (why not, sure). If the bug is not critical, it's either pushed to the next milestone, or pushed to the next release. That makes sense to me. If this is the way it's formulated, I don't have a problem with it.


_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

Matthew Miller-2
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> However, I think I misread your comment. I believed you're proposing we
> reject bugs existing in stable releases as blockers at any point of the
> development cycle. But you seem to have suggested we do this only if
> they're discovered very shortly before the milestone deadline. Is that
> correct? If so, I'm sorry for the confusion. In this case, I don't really

Yes, correct. :)


--
Matthew Miller
<[hidden email]>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

Adam Williamson
In reply to this post by Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks!

<snip>

So there was some great feedback on the first version of this proposal;
here's the second draft, with all the suggestions considered and
applied. Note, given the misunderstanding between Kamil and Matt, I
added a little paragraph to specifically clarify that the list of
factors to consider really is just a list of things to *consider*, not
a checklist of criteria that we apply unthinkingly.

As I explained in the first mail, the proposal is to add a section to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , called
"Exceptional cases", as a sub-section of the 'Reviewing blocker bugs'
section. Here is the revised proposal for how the new section should
read:

##################

=== Exceptional cases ===

Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the
[[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a
blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.

However, as explained in the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life
cycle page]] and the
[[Fedora_Release_Criteria#Release_Constraints|release criteria]], we
consider Fedora's release process not to be strictly based on time
''or'' strictly based on quality, but to take both into consideration.
This can mean that, in some exceptional circumstances, we may agree
that a bug constitutes a sufficient violation of the release criteria
that it would ordinarily be accepted as a blocker bug for the next
milestone release, but in fact accept it as a blocker bug for a later
milestone release.

There are currently two established circumstances in which this may
occur.

Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug
can be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to
be made.

Secondly, it may occur if the bug is discovered and/or proposed as a
blocker very late in the release validation process. Sometimes, a
relatively less important blocker bug (such as a non-vital default
installed application on a release-blocking medium failing to run, for
instance) may only be found very near the end of the release validation
process, too late for it to be reasonably possible to fix it without
delaying the release. Again, we may make the determination that in such
a case it is preferable to go ahead with the release rather than delay
it to fix such a late-discovered bug.

All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties
(usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must
be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a
'conditional' violation of the release criteria. At least the following
will almost always be relevant:

* The severity and likely prevalence of the bug
* Whether the bug could, or should, have been discovered and/or
proposed as a blocker earlier
* Whether the bug affects the existing stable releases (if it does,
there is generally less benefit to be had by delaying the new release)
* How long the release in question has already been delayed
* Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out
other desirable work
* The possible effects of the expected delay (to Fedora itself, and
also to other things influenced by Fedora's schedules, including
downstream projects)

Note that these factors should be carefully and intelligently
considered on a case-by-case basis. This isn't a checklist; we cannot
just say "oh, that bug existed in the previous release, therefore it's
not a blocker, done". It's just a list of some of the factors we
typically ''consider'' in making this determination.

It is expected that in almost all 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be
accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or
for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this
'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise
would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be
accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or
{{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).

#################
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

Jan Kurik
Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the
Blocker bug process with your proposal.

And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with
0day bugs found at the last moment before release ? Should not we have
a statement for Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers
saying that such bugs need to be verified and have enough karma before
relevant Go/No-Go meeting ? My question is base on the experience we
made during F26 release cycle, when we stopped already running
mirroring of a release as we realized the 0day fix will not be ready
at the release day. Having such a statement (and follow it) might save
the effort especially RelEng is putting into the release activities
after Go/No-Go meeting.

Regards,
Jan

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Adam Williamson
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Hi, folks!
>
> <snip>
>
> So there was some great feedback on the first version of this proposal;
> here's the second draft, with all the suggestions considered and
> applied. Note, given the misunderstanding between Kamil and Matt, I
> added a little paragraph to specifically clarify that the list of
> factors to consider really is just a list of things to *consider*, not
> a checklist of criteria that we apply unthinkingly.
>
> As I explained in the first mail, the proposal is to add a section to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process , called
> "Exceptional cases", as a sub-section of the 'Reviewing blocker bugs'
> section. Here is the revised proposal for how the new section should
> read:
>
> ##################
>
> === Exceptional cases ===
>
> Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the
> [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a
> blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.
>
> However, as explained in the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life
> cycle page]] and the
> [[Fedora_Release_Criteria#Release_Constraints|release criteria]], we
> consider Fedora's release process not to be strictly based on time
> ''or'' strictly based on quality, but to take both into consideration.
> This can mean that, in some exceptional circumstances, we may agree
> that a bug constitutes a sufficient violation of the release criteria
> that it would ordinarily be accepted as a blocker bug for the next
> milestone release, but in fact accept it as a blocker bug for a later
> milestone release.
>
> There are currently two established circumstances in which this may
> occur.
>
> Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug
> can be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to
> be made.
>
> Secondly, it may occur if the bug is discovered and/or proposed as a
> blocker very late in the release validation process. Sometimes, a
> relatively less important blocker bug (such as a non-vital default
> installed application on a release-blocking medium failing to run, for
> instance) may only be found very near the end of the release validation
> process, too late for it to be reasonably possible to fix it without
> delaying the release. Again, we may make the determination that in such
> a case it is preferable to go ahead with the release rather than delay
> it to fix such a late-discovered bug.
>
> All such cases must be evaluated and discussed by the usual parties
> (usually at a blocker bug review meeting) and all relevant factors must
> be taken into account, much like the discussion of a bug that is a
> 'conditional' violation of the release criteria. At least the following
> will almost always be relevant:
>
> * The severity and likely prevalence of the bug
> * Whether the bug could, or should, have been discovered and/or
> proposed as a blocker earlier
> * Whether the bug affects the existing stable releases (if it does,
> there is generally less benefit to be had by delaying the new release)
> * How long the release in question has already been delayed
> * Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out
> other desirable work
> * The possible effects of the expected delay (to Fedora itself, and
> also to other things influenced by Fedora's schedules, including
> downstream projects)
>
> Note that these factors should be carefully and intelligently
> considered on a case-by-case basis. This isn't a checklist; we cannot
> just say "oh, that bug existed in the previous release, therefore it's
> not a blocker, done". It's just a list of some of the factors we
> typically ''consider'' in making this determination.
>
> It is expected that in almost all 'exceptional' cases, the bug will be
> accepted as a blocker either for the very next milestone release, or
> for the equivalent milestone for the next release (e.g. if this
> 'exceptional' provision is agreed to apply to a bug that otherwise
> would have blocked {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Final, it should be
> accepted as a blocker either for {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Alpha or
> {{FedoraVersion|long|next2}} Final).
>
> #################
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]



--
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:

> Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the
> Blocker bug process with your proposal.
>
> And there is one more topic related to this: how we should deal with
> 0day bugs found at the last moment before release ? Should not we have
> a statement for Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers
> saying that such bugs need to be verified and have enough karma before
> relevant Go/No-Go meeting ? My question is base on the experience we
> made during F26 release cycle, when we stopped already running
> mirroring of a release as we realized the 0day fix will not be ready
> at the release day. Having such a statement (and follow it) might save
> the effort especially RelEng is putting into the release activities
> after Go/No-Go meeting.

I think we could certainly stand to clarify the exact requirements
around Accepted0Day and AcceptedPreviousRelease blockers, yes. AFAIK
all we have for now is this in the blocker process SOP page:

"Accepted0Day is used for cases where the fix does not need to appear
in the final frozen release, but must be available as an update on
release day. AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix
must appear as an update for one or more stable releases."

And we're definitely missing some written-down policy about exactly
when the updates must be in exactly what state. I think we can do that
separately from this, though. I've got a lot on my plate ATM so it'd be
great if someone else could do this draft - perhaps you or Kamil (as I
know he's been interested in the question before)?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Loading...