Release-critical bug process?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 08:26 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> 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.

That's more or less what I thought too, hence "bugzappers will probably
do a lot of that" and not "bugzappers do all of that and no-one else
can" :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net