Blockers in Bugfix-Releases (Re: [Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.6 on May 31 (was May 24)?)
kseeger at samba.org
Tue Jun 5 13:22:19 MDT 2012
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:05:29AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > We have been there a couple of times, but we never reached
> > a proper decision:
> > I have frequently announced my opinion that there can not be
> > blocker bugs for bufix releases (i.e. version Samba X.Y.Z with Z > 0).
> > The only exception for this might be the case of a regression
> > that was introduced in version X.Z.(Z-1).
> > (I might be convinced to accept "introduced X.Y.Z' with 0 <= Z' < Z",
> > but it might be hard.)
> > In all other cases we have lived with the bug for some releases
> > anyways, so why should it be a blocker now?
> > The background for re-raising the issue is that bugs marked as
> > blockers for 3.6.6 (e.g., others as well) have managed to move
> > the release date again and again.
> > Proposal:
> > So I am proposing to not accept bugs as blockers for a bugfix
> > release, with the exception of a bug introduced in the previous
> > bugfix release. If the bug is not fixed by the proposed release
> > date then it will get into the next bugfix release afterwards
> > (or the second next, ...)
> > Opinions?
> -1. There are some bugs that are just so nasty I don't
> want to have them even in a x.y.z release.
> We just have to use judgement on them.
I agree. There are severe bugs that definately do not allow to ship
another release without a fix for this issue.
More information about the samba-technical