[cle-release-team] Decision: managing blockers on 2.9 release

[Matthew Jones]

I agree, we really don't have great sense from the past on what we want the
priorities to mean. When issues are created they're assigned the priority
"Major" and increased by the reporter or someone afterward. Here's what the
workflow says:


 Blocker - Release will not be completed until issue is resolved. An
example would be a severe problem that bridges multiple tools, or prevents
core functionality in one tool.

 Critical - Issue will most likely be resolved for release.

 Major - Issue should be resolved for release.

 Minor - Issue may be resolved for release.

 Trivial - Issues that might be resolved before a release.

It feels like a Blocker would be as you say "A new issue both a regression
from previous releases and a easily reproduced severe problem that bridges
multiple tools, or prevents core functionality in one tool. "
Critical would for issues that have existed in past releases that may
prevent a secondary functionality in one tool. Or for difficult to
reproduce, randomly occurring severe problems.
Major would be more for any general problem that doesn't prevent
functionality but results in a less than ideal user experience
Minor/Trivial could be defined similarly.

I believe the definition of "should be resolved/may be resolved/most likely
resolved" is completely misleading. ;)

This would also allow us downgrade some
incorrectly categorized criticals back to major so we know what developers
really needs focus on and what things to look out for.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org
> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> At the last CLE meeting, which I know a lot of you were unable to attend,
> we discussed getting 2.9 into GA (general availability)  aka Production
> release, or whatever you like to call it. As part of the process to get the
> release out we propose that we keep as Blockers only new regressions, with
> the rationale that if a blocker is in production for 2.8.2 then we can
> probably live with it as a blocker for 2.9.0 (which means, in effect, that
> it won't really be considered a blocker for the 2.9.0 release).
>
> Does anybody have any objections to this approach? If so, please voice
> your concerns over email, or at latest by attending next Thursday's CLE
> meeting.
>
> Thanks,
> Neal
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cle-release-team mailing list
> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/cle-release-team/attachments/20120817/9d61b8cf/attachment-0006.html