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

Michael Adam obnox at
Mon Jun 18 04:56:23 MDT 2012


Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:03:21PM +0200, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> > 
> > I would really like to hear Volker's and Jeremy's point of view regarding
> > the regressions. In the past, I had several times the impression that we
> > do need blocker bugs (and that the use of them was not abused).
> > Maybe you guys would like to comment.
> Yeah, I depend on blocker bugs in order to make sure critical
> fixes don't get lost for a release.
> They're essential, and not abused IMHO. If people disagree
> they can (and do) mark them down from blocker.

No, that misses the point. It might lead to people bouncing
blocker on and down in a battle. I think it has happend in the
past. The point is that "blocker" status must be ignored, have
have no relevance for bugfix releases.

> This system works well IMHO.

No it does not. Blockers have deprived our users from _many_
bugfixes for (too) many months now.

See the other recent mails for proposals how to move forward...

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list