Blockers in Bugfix-Releases (Re: [Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.6 on May 31 (was May 24)?)

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 21:22 +0200, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> 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.

If we were to ship without fixes for these issues, would the next 3.6.x
release be worse than the release we currently have out there?

That is, are these regressions?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org