Release-critical bug process?

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  
> b) We all more or less agreed that the process should make it quite
> easy
> to nominate a bug to 'block' a release, and bugzappers will probably
> do
> a lot of that, but ultimately for now it's probably right for Jesse
> (or,
> more formally, RelEng) to be the ultimate arbiter. Jesse would like us
> to err on the side of nominating things to be blockers - he's more
> worried about missing something important than the time it takes to
> weed
> out things he doesn't consider critical.

I'm not sure expecting one team to process and escalate all reported
issues scales.  I'd expect the subject matter experts involved with the
testing (devel+qa) to come up with criteria for their "Feature".  When
there is a discrepancy between the two ... that list is taken to a 3rd
party for the Yay/Nay.

Thanks,
James

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090212/52d9fe38/attachment.sig>