Bug details: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171458 Information from BlockerBugs App: <img alt="2171458" src="https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/api/v0/bugimg/2171458" />
The votes have been last counted at 2023-03-06 15:36 UTC and the last processed comment was #comment-845082
To learn how to vote, see: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review A quick example: BetaBlocker +1 (where the tracker name is one of BetaBlocker/FinalBlocker/BetaFE/FinalFE/0Day/PreviousRelease and the vote is one of +1/0/-1)
BetaBlocker +1
BetaBlocker
FinalBlocker
BetaFE
FinalFE
0Day
PreviousRelease
+1
0
-1
BetaFE +1
There's no harm in including FTBFS fix (also no real reason as opposed to FTI fixes).
BetaFE 0
I don't see a compelling reason to include this (as opposed to a FTI fix), but I'm not going to argue about it.
BetaFE -1
We have to keep some standards around here, darnit. =) The default should be not to grant FE/blocker status. That's what a freeze means. There is a reasonable justification for FEs for FTI, there is no reasonable justification for FEs for FTBFS alone.
There is a reasonable justification for FEs for FTI, there is no reasonable justification for FEs for FTBFS alone.
I always forget which one to +1, so I +1 both :-D
Also, I somewhat take the approach of "sure, +1" unless it looks risky. But the opposite is probably better, especially to decrease the load of proposed FEs.
To make Adam happy and keep the standards: BetaFE -1
AGREED RejectedBetaFE There is no point in getting FTBFS fixes through the FE process.
The following votes have been closed:
Metadata Update from @blockerbot: - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Release F38 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.
Log in to comment on this ticket.