QA:SOP freeze exception bug process

From FedoraProject

Revision as of 00:54, 19 October 2010 by Adamwill (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Background

Fedora uses a system of tracker bugs to keep track of nice-to-have (NTH) bugs - bugs which do not block a given pre-release or release, but which are considered high priority for tracking and fixing, and for which fixes will be accepted even during the freeze period for that release. This page defines the process by which bugs are proposed, reviewed and accepted as nice-to-have bugs, and how nice-to-have bugs are then tracked.

See also the blocker bug process, which defines the similar process for blocker bugs - bugs that are blocking the release of its pre- and final releases and which must be fixed before these releases can proceed.

Nice-to-have bug principles

Strict Fedora_Release_Criteria are used to define whether a bug should block a Fedora release, but determining whether a bug is a nice-to-have is a more flexible process and should be done on a case-by-case basis. However, we have evolved some principles to be taken into account when evaluating a bug for nice-to-have status.

In general, nice-to-have bugs are usually bugs for which an update is not an optimal solution, and for which the fix is reasonably small and testable (this consideration becomes progressively more important as a release nears, so bugs may be downgraded from nice-to-have status late in the release process if it transpires that the fix is complex and hard to test).

Types of bugs which are typically likely to be accepted as nice-to-have bugs include:

  1. bugs which constitute infringements of the desktop-related Fedora_Release_Criteria as applied to non-default desktops
  2. bugs which result in a system being unable to reach a graphical environment
  3. significant installer bugs which do not meet the criteria to be blocker bugs

Proposing nice-to-have bugs

To propose a bug as a nice-to-have for a release, mark it as blocking the tracker bug for nice-to-have 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 nice-to-have tracker bugs follow a consistent naming scheme. The Alpha tracker will always be called FXXAlpha-accepted, the Beta tracker will always be called FXXBeta-accepted, and the final release tracker will always be called FXX-accepted, where XX is the number of the release in question. So, to mark a bug as a nice-to-have for the release of Fedora 21 Beta, you would set it to block the bug F21Beta-accepted.

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

Reviewing nice-to-have bugs

Proposed nice-to-have bugs are reviewed and either accepted or rejected in collaboration between the three stakeholder groups: QA, Development and ReleaseEngineering. This is mostly done during the weekly blocker review meeting. Blocker review meetings usually occur every Friday during release periods, but special review meetings can be scheduled at other times when necessary. When appropriate, proposed nice-to-have bugs 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 nice-to-have.

Bugs that are accepted as nice-to-have for the relevant release will be marked with the Whiteboard field AcceptedNTH. Bugs which are rejected will be updated to no longer block the relevant tracker bug, and have the RejectedNTH Whiteboard field added so that if they are proposed 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 nice-to-have status should also be documented with a comment.

Tracking nice-to-have bugs

Again, tracking nice-to-have bugs and making a best effort to fix them is a collaborative effort between the QA, Development and Release Engineering groups. After blocker bugs, QA group members are encouraged to prioritize testing of nice-to-have bug fixes, development group members are encouraged to prioritize developing fixes for nice-to-have bugs, and release engineering group members are encouraged to prioritize the release of fixes for nice-to-have bugs (after appropriate testing). Each group should have its own processes for ensuring its responsibilities in relation to nice-to-have bugs are met.

In Bugzilla, nice-to-have 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. Builds that fix nice-to-have bugs should be pulled into TC and RC builds by the release engineering team as long as they are submitted as proposed updates and meet the necessary karma requirements. No nice-to-have 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.