Hi Gunnar, Disclaimer, I haven't discussed this with the team, so what I write here is my personal perception and opinion. On 11-08-2019 05:26, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Dear Release Team members, I am reaching out to see what is your > position regarding bug #932795, which in turn references > #907829. Ack. I'm aware of the bug and subscribed. > Thing is, I want to push a bit before we (Tech-Ctte) to have > a possible decision for our next meeting (2019.08.21). Our next meeting will be on 2019-08-28, so discussing it there will be too late for you. > In short - This bug started off quite aggressively between two > developers, and I don't think it's easy to deescalate. But I think > that there is a good way to solve the situation - _if_ the Release > Team is willing to accept one more power / responsability. [...] > If, in a fashion similar to issuing release qualifications for > architectures, the Release Team indicates which is the minimum > acceptable build environment for a FTBFS to be considered RC. That solution makes sense to me. However, I fear that we as a team are already having enough on our plate with the architecture qualification. I am not aware of anybody that would be willing to guide the process of determining what that environment would be (hence the lack of an answer to the original bug, although I already put it on the agenda for our next meeting *before* I learned of the bug to the tech-ctte). I wouldn't be happy doing that without proper discussion. I personally don't feel qualified to make this call. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature