Hi Petr,
The blocker criteria would be quite useful ;-) Thank you!
For the process to nominate a blocker, is there a specific reason to report a nomination
twice (1 in mailing list, 2 in bugzilla)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may nominate blocker bugs using the libreoffice mailing list. Please use the subject:
Nominating bug xxxx as blocker for LibO-X.Y.Z release
You should also add a dependency to the meta bug:
LibO-3.3 - bug #31865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A potential problem of the twice nominating is reporter may forget to do another process
after finishing one step. e.g. what if he/she only sends a mail and forget comment on Bugzilla?
Then more documentation effort will be needed to keep 2 sets of information 'sync'.
A uniform reporting path might make it more manageable. Can we just add libreoffice
mailing list to a CC list of the meta bug or something like that. Since the release version
is included in the Meta bug title, we would not be likely missing new blocker information
in the mailing list. For the detailed bug list, we just need to check the dependency fields
by clicking meta bug URL inside the mail.
Best wishes,
Yifan
Context
- Re: [Libreoffice] Release criteria · Yi Fan Jiang
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.