#1055 [capnproto] capnproto: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f38 | rhbz#2171458
Closed a year ago by blockerbot. Opened a year ago by blockerbot.

Bug details: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171458
Information from BlockerBugs App:
2171458

Current vote summary

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)


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)

a year ago

Release F38 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.

Log in to comment on this ticket.

Metadata