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

Karolin Seeger kseeger at
Wed Jun 13 12:46:06 MDT 2012

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:39:00AM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> 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?

Many people hit the issue, so it was kind of approved. Then Jeremy started
to investigate and it was pretty soon clear that it's really an issue.
But you could have lower the severity youself. Feel free to do that next
time. I think this was a bad one and I am glad that it is fixed now.
And as I already wrote in my mail to Andrew, the real reason for the last
delay was the assumed security release.
> 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.

That happened. It's known since pre3. But it took a while since it was
approved and the cause was found. See for the history.

> 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 am still thinking that there are basic features that must work and can
cause a delay. But when I am the only one, please just change the severity
next time and I will ship the release.
> 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.



More information about the samba-technical mailing list