On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:23:40 + (UTC)
Andre Robatino wrote:
> Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:52 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > > Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting
> > > unfixed freeze exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Fi
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 19:23 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:52 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > > Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
> > > exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? Th
On Nov 6, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:52 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
>>> Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
>>> exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:52 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
> > exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept doesn't make
> > sense for blockers, since those have to
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:52 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
> exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept doesn't make
> sense for blockers, since those have to be fixed at each stage before going
> to the ne
Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept doesn't make
sense for blockers, since those have to be fixed at each stage before going
to the next, but FEs don't.
On a related note, I've noticed a tendency in
