Bugzilla

(In reply to Release mgmt bot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte] from comment #14)
> :fgriffith, could you please find an assignee and increase the severity for this tracked bug? Given that it is a regression and we know the cause, we could also simply backout the regressor. If you disagree with the tracking decision, please talk with the release managers.

[stealing Frank's nagbot-needinfo here]

Given that the regressor landed 7 months ago (and fixed rendering bugs / interop issues, per the various .ini test-failure-annotations removed in its final patch), it's unlikely that we'd back it out at this point (and it might not be possible to back it out cleanly.

Also not a showstopper for 110, since we've been shipping the current behavior since v104.  And when we do have a fix, it feels like it'd be risky to uplift to beta at this point in the release cycle; floats are fiddly and can have all sorts of unforeseen edge cases. So (when we have a fix) I'd prefer to let this ride the trains, or uplift early in the beta cycle to be sure it's properly baked.

Would be great to fix soon, of course; and this is already on TYLin's needinfo queue; hopefully he can take a look soon, or hand it off if he doesn't have cycles to look.

So: I suggest we remove the tracking flag for 110 and assume this'll be wontfix for 110, and plan on tracking this for 111 instead.  Pascal, does that sound OK to you?

(In reply to Release mgmt bot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte] from comment #14)
> :fgriffith, could you please find an assignee and increase the severity for this tracked bug? Given that it is a regression and we know the cause, we could also simply backout the regressor. If you disagree with the tracking decision, please talk with the release managers.

[stealing Frank's nagbot-needinfo here]

Given that the regressor landed 7 months ago (and fixed rendering bugs / interop issues, per the various .ini test-failure-annotations removed in its final patch), it's unlikely that we'd back it out at this point (and it might not be possible to back it out cleanly.

This bug is also not really a showstopper for 110, since we've been shipping the current behavior since v104.  And when we do have a fix, it feels like it'd be risky to uplift to beta at this point in the release cycle; floats are fiddly and can have all sorts of unforeseen edge cases. So (when we have a fix) I'd prefer to let this ride the trains, or uplift early in the beta cycle to be sure it's properly baked.

Would be great to fix soon, of course; and this is already on TYLin's needinfo queue; hopefully he can take a look soon, or hand it off if he doesn't have cycles to look.

So: I suggest we remove the tracking flag for 110 and assume this'll be wontfix for 110, and plan on tracking this for 111 instead.  Pascal, does that sound OK to you?