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

[Michael Adam]

Karolin Seeger wrote:
> 
> So you guys want to ship bugfix releases with severe known issues?
> That might work with more developers working on bugs on a regular basis.
> Currently, it does not. There are severe bugs that need to be addressed
> before the next bugfix release.

I don't get it. The bugs we are talking about have been there
since some time. We have shipped major and/or bugfix releases
with them. So how can the bug be suddenly so severe that we
should hold back existing fixes for other bugs from our users
until the fix for this bug is available, i.e. for an uncertain
amount of time?

Just the fact that we are now aware of the bug does not change
the severity per se. The only exception I can imagine being
security issues - here then the situation is different.

But for issues that are not security relevant, shipping without
the fix does not render the next release less useful or less secure
than the previous one.

IMHO, a non-security issue that is so severe that we can not
ship another release with it, must have hit our users so badly
that we have noticed in the first release that shipped it.
And this is exactly the exception I described from the start.

I'd really like to understand the thinking, so please elaborate.

> Otherwise, they would never be addressed.
> IMHO blockers are needed to create a certain pressure.

I don't think so. This only increases pressure on our users
since we deprive them of bugfixes that are already available.

I just think that we need to close the door for releases:
Either by specifying a date for the release and just taking
those bugfixes that are available at the time (if there are
any) or by maintaining a list of bugs that we want fixed.
(These would then legitimately be chosen blockers for the
release. But that list should be closed at some point, so
no new blockes can be added. In both cases, security issues
interrupt the process and can lead to a delay.

Cheers - Michael


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20120610/867c1509/attachment.pgp>