On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:52 PM Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Kamil Paral <kpa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > I think this: > > "If the release is declared no-go, the bug loses last minute status." > > should be part of our policy. I considered it obvious, but I'm sure some > people (/me looking at Frantisek) would argue. Let's put it there. > > > > The proposed phrasing sounds ok to me, even though there is technically > (since you enjoy it) a little bit of catch-22. You can't declare the > release go, before you deal with all the blockers, and you can't postpone a > last minute bug according to your phrasing, before you declare the release > go. But it doesn't bother me too much. > > > I disagree, but I can see the ambiguity. If I edit it to "If the > release is subsequently declared go..." does that make it more clear? > Sounds a bit clearer to me. But again, no strong opinion here.
_______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
