Ideas for improving the release process
Daniel van Vugt
daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com
Thu Feb 18 01:23:15 UTC 2016
It's less of an issue if we also remember to review release branches
before top approving them. In that case, hopefully code reviewers will
also check for open critical bugs and mention them.
But yeah I feel we're not utilizing the importance field if we're
allowing critical bugs to remain open without anyone even checking on
them during the release process.
BTW, I demoted the remaining ones to High yesterday so all criticals are
now resolved :)
On 17/02/16 21:48, Kevin Gunn wrote:
> So are you both tied to the idea of using Critical/High for this?
> as the lp definition/intimations for Critical/High don't really match
> the "blocker" use, would you be ok with using a tag "blocker" instead?
> can't see how a tag is any more costly and gets the job done all the same.
> ultimately the call is Stephen's.
> If you choose the Critical/High....just needs to be a) outlined
> somewhere & b) added to the release instructions like duflu originally
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Stephen M. Webb
> <stephen.webb at canonical.com <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com>> wrote:
> On 16-02-16 08:08 PM, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> > If a critical bug isn't blocking a release I guess it should be demoted to High.
> > We need some simple threshold that doesn't require the reader to understand the details of each bug. Just that "if
> > importance >= critical then don't release". And there's no other level we can use for that other than critical (or
> > 'high' later as the project matures).
> I have to agree with this. If the bug is not critical enough to
> block a release, it shouldn't be classed as critical.
> Stephen M. Webb <stephen.webb at canonical.com
> <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com>>
> Mir-devel mailing list
> Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
More information about the Mir-devel