QA:SOP blocker bug process

From FedoraProject

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Proposing blocker bugs)
(add fesco-designated bugs as automatic blockers)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Fedora uses a system of ''tracker bugs'' to keep track of ''release blocker bugs'' - bugs that are blocking the release of its pre- and final releases and which must be fixed before these releases can proceed. The [[Fedora_Release_Criteria]] should be used to determine whether a bug is a blocker for a given release. This page defines the process by which bugs are proposed, reviewed and accepted as blocker bugs, and how blocker bugs are then tracked.
 
Fedora uses a system of ''tracker bugs'' to keep track of ''release blocker bugs'' - bugs that are blocking the release of its pre- and final releases and which must be fixed before these releases can proceed. The [[Fedora_Release_Criteria]] should be used to determine whether a bug is a blocker for a given release. This page defines the process by which bugs are proposed, reviewed and accepted as blocker bugs, and how blocker bugs are then tracked.
  
See also the [[QA:SOP:Nice_to_have_bug_process|nice-to-have bug process]], which defines the similar process for nice-to-have bugs - those which do not block the release, but which are considered high priority for tracking and fixing.
+
See also the [[QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process|freeze exception bug process]], which defines the similar process for freeze exception bugs - those which do not block the release, but which are considered high priority for tracking and fixing and for which fixes will be accepted even during release freezes.
  
 
== Proposing blocker bugs ==
 
== Proposing blocker bugs ==
  
Only bugs reported against a Fedora component in [http://bugzilla.redhat.com Red Hat Bugzilla] can be marked as blocking a Fedora release. If the bug you wish to mark as a blocker is being tracked in an upstream bug tracking system, you must file a corresponding bug in the Fedora bug tracking system before proposing it as a blocker.
+
To propose a bug as a blocker for a release, mark it as blocking the ''tracker bug'' for blocker bugs in that release. To do this, enter an alias or bug ID of the ''tracker bug'' into the '''Blocks:''' field in Bugzilla. The aliases for the ''tracker bugs'' follow a consistent naming scheme. For the next release, the Alpha tracker will always be called '''AlphaBlocker''', the Beta tracker will always be called '''BetaBlocker''', and the final release tracker will always be called '''FinalBlocker'''. Rarely, you may need to propose a bug as blocking the next release but one - in this case, prepend '''FXX''' (where XX is the release number) to the name of the alias, e.g. '''F{{FedoraVersionNumber|next2}}AlphaBlocker'''. So, to mark a bug as blocking the release of {{FedoraVersion|long|next}} Beta, you would set it to block the bug '''BetaBlocker'''. When proposing a bug as a blocker, you should always explicitly state which of the [[Fedora_Release_Criteria]] you consider it to be infringing (see [[BugZappers/StockBugzillaResponses#Blocker_Bug_Addition|example]]). You can find a complete list of blocker tracker bugs at [[BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Trackers]].
  
To propose a bug as a blocker for a release, mark it as blocking the ''tracker bug'' for blocker bugs in that release. To do this, enter the alias or bug ID of the ''tracker bug'' into the '''Blocks:''' field in Bugzilla. The aliases for the ''tracker bugs'' follow a consistent naming scheme. The Alpha tracker will always be called '''FXXAlpha''', the Beta tracker will always be called '''FXXBeta''', and the final release tracker will always be called '''FXXBlocker''', where ''XX'' is the number of the release in question. So, to mark a bug as blocking the release of Fedora 14 Beta, you would set it to block the bug '''F14Beta'''. When proposing a bug as a blocker, you should always explicitly state which of the [[Fedora_Release_Criteria]] you consider it to be infringing.
+
{{admon/important|Must use [http://bugzilla.redhat.com Red Hat Bugzilla]|Only bugs reported against a ''Fedora'' component in [http://bugzilla.redhat.com Red Hat Bugzilla] can be marked as blocking a Fedora release. If the bug you wish to mark as a blocker is being tracked in an upstream bug tracking system, you must file a corresponding bug in the Fedora bug tracking system before proposing it as a blocker.}}
  
 
== Reviewing blocker bugs ==
 
== Reviewing blocker bugs ==
  
Proposed blockers are reviewed and either accepted or rejected as blockers in collaboration between the [[QA]], [[Development]] and [[ReleaseEngineering]] groups. This is mostly done during weekly meetings for the express purpose of reviewing blocker bugs: the procedure followed during these meetings is documented [[QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting|here]]. Blocker review meetings usually occur every Friday during release periods, but special review meetings can be scheduled at other times when necessary. Blocker review meetings are public, and reporters who propose a bug as a release blocker are allowed and indeed encouraged to attend the meeting where it is reviewed. When appropriate, proposed blockers may also be reviewed between meetings or during other meetings, such as the ''engineering readiness meeting'' (also known as a ''go/no-go meeting'') which is convened to decide whether a release candidate should be approved as a final release. In these cases, consensus between the three stakeholder groups should still be reached in order to accept or reject a bug as a blocker. Bugs which are rejected as blockers can be considered for the [[QA:SOP:Nice_to_have_bug_process|nice-to-have bug process]].
+
Proposed blockers are reviewed and either ''accepted'' or ''rejected'' as blockers in collaboration between three stakeholder groups: [[QA]], [[Development]] and [[ReleaseEngineering]]. This is mostly done during weekly meetings for the express purpose of reviewing blocker bugs: the procedure followed during these meetings is documented [[QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting|here]]. Blocker review meetings usually occur every Wednesday during release periods, but special review meetings can be scheduled at other times when necessary. Blocker review meetings are public, and reporters who propose a bug as a release blocker are allowed and indeed encouraged to attend the meeting where it is reviewed.  
  
Bugs that are accepted as blockers for the relevant release will be marked with the Whiteboard field ''AcceptedBlocker''. Bugs which are rejected as blockers will be updated to no longer block the relevant ''tracker bug'', and have the ''RejectedBlocker'' Whiteboard field added so that if they are proposed as blockers again, it is clear they have already been considered and rejected. Therefore, a bug which has been proposed but not accepted or rejected can be identified by the lack of a relevant Whiteboard field. All changes to blocker status should also be documented with a comment.
+
When appropriate, proposed blockers may also be reviewed between meetings by Bugzilla comment discussion, or during the [[Go_No_Go_Meeting|''engineering readiness meeting'']] (also known as a ''go/no-go meeting'') which is convened to decide whether a release candidate should be approved as a final release. In these cases, consensus between the three stakeholder groups should still be reached in order to accept or reject a bug as a blocker. However, review should not be done as part of [[QA/Meetings|QA meetings]]. If blocker review is required or desirable at the time of a QA meeting, a proper blocker bug review meeting should be convened immediately following the QA meeting. Bugs which are rejected as blockers can be considered for the [[QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process|freeze exception bug process]].
 +
 
 +
Bugs that are accepted as blockers for the relevant release will be marked with the Whiteboard field <code>AcceptedBlocker</code>. Bugs which are rejected as blockers will be updated to no longer block the relevant ''tracker bug'', and have the <code>RejectedBlocker</code> Whiteboard field added so that if they are proposed as blockers again, it is clear they have already been considered and rejected. Therefore, a bug which has been proposed but not accepted or rejected can be identified by the lack of a relevant Whiteboard field. All changes to blocker status should also be documented with a comment. The comment should explain the rationale behind the decision and should link to the summary or logs of the meeting at which the decision was made.
 +
 
 +
== Automatic blockers ==
 +
 
 +
Certain types of bugs are considered ''automatic blockers''. These bugs can be marked as AcceptedBlocker by any member of one of the stakeholder groups without formal review. A comment should accompany this change, explaining that it has been made under the ''automatic blocker'' policy and linking to this section of this page. If anyone believes that a bug has been incorrectly marked as AcceptedBlocker in this way, they may propose that it be formally reviewed by appending a comment to the bug or by raising it during a blocker review meeting. '''Only''' the following types of bug are considered ''automatic blockers''. Note that
 +
where an item on this list applies to release-blocking images, a corresponding issue in a non-release-blocking image would likely be an ''automatic freeze exception'', under the corresponding [[QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process#Automatic_freeze_exceptions|policy]].
 +
 
 +
* Bugs which entirely prevent the composition of one or more of the release-blocking images required to be built for a currently-pending (pre-)release
 +
* Incorrect checksums present on any of the release-blocking TC/RC images (failures of [[QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Checksums]])
 +
* Unresolved dependencies on the DVD image (failures of [[QA:Testcase_Mediakit_Repoclosure]])
 +
* File conflicts between two packages on the DVD image without an explicit Conflicts: tag (failures of [[QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts]])
 +
* Complete failure of any release-blocking TC/RC image to boot at all under any circumstance - "DOA" image (conditional failure is not an automatic blocker)
 +
* Any release-blocking Beta or Final TC/RC image exceeding its target size (failures of [[QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Size]])
 +
* Bugs designated as release blockers by FESCo (see [[{{FedoraVersion|long|next}}_Alpha_Release_Criteria#FESCo_blocker_bugs]])
 +
 
 +
No other type of bug can be considered an ''automatic blocker'' under any circumstance. In particular, "I think it is obviously a blocker" is not a valid reason to use this procedure. If you believe another type of bug should be added to the list, please propose the change on the
 +
[https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test test@ mailing list].
  
 
== Tracking blocker bugs ==
 
== Tracking blocker bugs ==
Line 23: Line 41:
 
In Bugzilla, blocker bugs should follow the normal [[BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow|workflow]], with special attention paid by the development group to submitting proposed fixes to the updates-testing repository so they reach '''MODIFIED''' and '''ON_QA''' status, and special attention paid by the QA group to testing proposed fixes and setting ones that are tested successfully to the VERIFIED status. No blocker bug should be set to '''CLOSED ERRATA''' until a fix is actually released to the stable repository for the release in question: if a working fix is added to a test candidate or release candidate build, but not yet pushed to the stable repository, the bug should not be marked '''CLOSED ERRATA''', as this may result in the fix not being pushed to the stable repository and the fix accidentally omitted from the next candidate build as it is no longer possible to track the bug.
 
In Bugzilla, blocker bugs should follow the normal [[BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow|workflow]], with special attention paid by the development group to submitting proposed fixes to the updates-testing repository so they reach '''MODIFIED''' and '''ON_QA''' status, and special attention paid by the QA group to testing proposed fixes and setting ones that are tested successfully to the VERIFIED status. No blocker bug should be set to '''CLOSED ERRATA''' until a fix is actually released to the stable repository for the release in question: if a working fix is added to a test candidate or release candidate build, but not yet pushed to the stable repository, the bug should not be marked '''CLOSED ERRATA''', as this may result in the fix not being pushed to the stable repository and the fix accidentally omitted from the next candidate build as it is no longer possible to track the bug.
  
[[Category:NTH_adjustment_drafts]]
+
== See also ==
 +
* [[Blocker Bug FAQ]]
 +
 
 
[[Category:QA SOPs]]
 
[[Category:QA SOPs]]

Latest revision as of 20:39, 11 July 2014

Contents

[edit] Background

Fedora uses a system of tracker bugs to keep track of release blocker bugs - bugs that are blocking the release of its pre- and final releases and which must be fixed before these releases can proceed. The Fedora_Release_Criteria should be used to determine whether a bug is a blocker for a given release. This page defines the process by which bugs are proposed, reviewed and accepted as blocker bugs, and how blocker bugs are then tracked.

See also the freeze exception bug process, which defines the similar process for freeze exception bugs - those which do not block the release, but which are considered high priority for tracking and fixing and for which fixes will be accepted even during release freezes.

[edit] Proposing blocker bugs

To propose a bug as a blocker for a release, mark it as blocking the tracker bug for blocker bugs in that release. To do this, enter an alias or bug ID of the tracker bug into the Blocks: field in Bugzilla. The aliases for the tracker bugs follow a consistent naming scheme. For the next release, the Alpha tracker will always be called AlphaBlocker, the Beta tracker will always be called BetaBlocker, and the final release tracker will always be called FinalBlocker. Rarely, you may need to propose a bug as blocking the next release but one - in this case, prepend FXX (where XX is the release number) to the name of the alias, e.g. F22AlphaBlocker. So, to mark a bug as blocking the release of Fedora 21 Beta, you would set it to block the bug BetaBlocker. When proposing a bug as a blocker, you should always explicitly state which of the Fedora_Release_Criteria you consider it to be infringing (see example). You can find a complete list of blocker tracker bugs at BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Trackers.

Important.png
Must use Red Hat Bugzilla
Only bugs reported against a Fedora component in Red Hat Bugzilla can be marked as blocking a Fedora release. If the bug you wish to mark as a blocker is being tracked in an upstream bug tracking system, you must file a corresponding bug in the Fedora bug tracking system before proposing it as a blocker.

[edit] Reviewing blocker bugs

Proposed blockers are reviewed and either accepted or rejected as blockers in collaboration between three stakeholder groups: QA, Development and ReleaseEngineering. This is mostly done during weekly meetings for the express purpose of reviewing blocker bugs: the procedure followed during these meetings is documented here. Blocker review meetings usually occur every Wednesday during release periods, but special review meetings can be scheduled at other times when necessary. Blocker review meetings are public, and reporters who propose a bug as a release blocker are allowed and indeed encouraged to attend the meeting where it is reviewed.

When appropriate, proposed blockers may also be reviewed between meetings by Bugzilla comment discussion, or during the engineering readiness meeting (also known as a go/no-go meeting) which is convened to decide whether a release candidate should be approved as a final release. In these cases, consensus between the three stakeholder groups should still be reached in order to accept or reject a bug as a blocker. However, review should not be done as part of QA meetings. If blocker review is required or desirable at the time of a QA meeting, a proper blocker bug review meeting should be convened immediately following the QA meeting. Bugs which are rejected as blockers can be considered for the freeze exception bug process.

Bugs that are accepted as blockers for the relevant release will be marked with the Whiteboard field AcceptedBlocker. Bugs which are rejected as blockers will be updated to no longer block the relevant tracker bug, and have the RejectedBlocker Whiteboard field added so that if they are proposed as blockers again, it is clear they have already been considered and rejected. Therefore, a bug which has been proposed but not accepted or rejected can be identified by the lack of a relevant Whiteboard field. All changes to blocker status should also be documented with a comment. The comment should explain the rationale behind the decision and should link to the summary or logs of the meeting at which the decision was made.

[edit] Automatic blockers

Certain types of bugs are considered automatic blockers. These bugs can be marked as AcceptedBlocker by any member of one of the stakeholder groups without formal review. A comment should accompany this change, explaining that it has been made under the automatic blocker policy and linking to this section of this page. If anyone believes that a bug has been incorrectly marked as AcceptedBlocker in this way, they may propose that it be formally reviewed by appending a comment to the bug or by raising it during a blocker review meeting. Only the following types of bug are considered automatic blockers. Note that where an item on this list applies to release-blocking images, a corresponding issue in a non-release-blocking image would likely be an automatic freeze exception, under the corresponding policy.

No other type of bug can be considered an automatic blocker under any circumstance. In particular, "I think it is obviously a blocker" is not a valid reason to use this procedure. If you believe another type of bug should be added to the list, please propose the change on the test@ mailing list.

[edit] Tracking blocker bugs

Again, tracking blocker bugs and ensuring that they are fixed is a collaborative effort between the QA, Development and Release Engineering groups. The QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting process includes reviewing the status of existing blockers and ensuring that the appropriate resources to fix them are in place, as well as evaluating proposed blockers. QA group members are encouraged to prioritize testing of blocker bug fixes, development group members are encouraged to prioritize developing fixes for blocker bugs, and release engineering group members are encouraged to prioritize the release of fixes for blocker bugs (after appropriate testing). Each group should have its own processes for ensuring its responsibilities in relation to blocker bugs are met.

In Bugzilla, blocker bugs should follow the normal workflow, with special attention paid by the development group to submitting proposed fixes to the updates-testing repository so they reach MODIFIED and ON_QA status, and special attention paid by the QA group to testing proposed fixes and setting ones that are tested successfully to the VERIFIED status. No blocker bug should be set to CLOSED ERRATA until a fix is actually released to the stable repository for the release in question: if a working fix is added to a test candidate or release candidate build, but not yet pushed to the stable repository, the bug should not be marked CLOSED ERRATA, as this may result in the fix not being pushed to the stable repository and the fix accidentally omitted from the next candidate build as it is no longer possible to track the bug.

[edit] See also