On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 09:15 -0600, Mike Ruckman wrote:

I think we might be able to strike a balance here between total separation and a unified blocker process (though it incurs a bit of overhead). Just as we currently mark bugs as blockers, we can continue to do that - but *also* mark them as F21<foo>FinalBlocker. This would allow for tracking at the product level but also keep some sanity with blocker meetings. Then, later down the road if the blocker process diverges with each product, they can simply drop the generic blocker tracking bug.

I don't immediately see much of a downside to this - but then again, that doesn't mean there isn't :) At the very least it might lessen the learning curve as we carve a new path with Fedora.next.

I thought of something similar, but just as a whiteboard field entry, to make it less intrusive. That should be enough metadata for searches.

I should note that I was remiss in my original email in missing one issue with the 'combined' approach: it will likely require WG representatives to be present at most blocker meetings. I expect we'd at least want reps of any WG whose product is obviously affected by / involved in a given blocker to be present at the review meeting(s) for that blocker.

For the last few releases, blocker meetings have become almost QA-only a lot of the time, or QA plus releng; we haven't had very good representation from devs/packagers. A 'softly softly' approach to improving that hasn't gone very well; I think outside of QA and releng, people have developed this mindset where the blocker review process is something that Just Sorta Happens in the background, and they only get involved where it touches upon them directly (e.g. they're actually assigned a bug that's nominated as a blocker). We're probably going to have to change that mindset in a .next world: we would already quite *like* the expertise and input of folks outside QA/releng to the blocker process, but in a world with Products with more domain-specific release criteria, we're really going to need it.

...

Second, there's a similar issue of organization with regard to the release criteria. I haven't explicitly written this down anywhere, but I've been sort of unconsciously expecting that we'd keep the existing 'generic' release criteria pages for criteria that are not Product-specific, and then we'd have Product-specific release criteria pages which would basically be *additive*: they'd add additional criteria applicable only to that Product. They could also perhaps 'patch' the generic criteria to a limited degree, though this would get messy if the delta got too great.

However, Mike (roshi) has produced draft release criteria for the Cloud product as part of his work on the 'test outline' for that product - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Cloud_Docs/Cloud_Alpha_Release_... , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Cloud_Docs/Cloud_Beta_Release_C... , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Cloud_Docs/Cloud_Final_Release_...

• and used another possible approach; the criteria he has drawn up

are clearly intended to be *comprehensive* with regard to the Cloud product. They would not need to be read in conjunction with the 'generic' criteria.

Just so we're clear here: I split out the cloud specific (from what I could tell) criteria out so that it was easier for me to keep track of in my head [0]. I wasn't intending it to be an end solution (even though I suppose it could be, at some point).

Sure, I understand that - but just the fact you did it this way highlighted that it was actually one possible 'final' approach. Before I saw your drafts I hadn't even really considered it.