Re: Bug mass filling
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Eric Dorland <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Andreas Barth (email@example.com) wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey (firstname.lastname@example.org) [061019 21:14]:
> > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > * Mike Hommey (firstname.lastname@example.org) [061019 20:42]:
> > > > > Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the
> > > > > serious bug description...
> > > >
> > > > Which do you mean? Please read the Etch RC policy. It tells:
> > > > | In addition to the issues listed in this document, an issue is release
> > > > | critical if it:
> > > > | [...]
> > > > | * in the maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable
> > > > | for release
> > > >
> > > > So, what does the Etch RC policy remove from the bugs.d.o description?
> > >
> > > 'is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a "must" or
> > > "required" directive), or'
> > The html-code for this part is:
> > <DT><CODE>serious</CODE>
> > <DD>is a <a href="http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt">severe
> > violation of Debian policy</a> (roughly, it violates a "must" or "required"
> > directive), or, in the package maintainer's opinion, makes the package
> > unsuitable for release.
> > So, obviously http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities defines
> > that "severe violation of Debian policy" means anything referenced in
> > the etch_rc_policy-document.
> I would have thought that meant a violation of
That was not a link before it was changed before sarge release, in July
Interesting log in the web page cvs:
The RM defines what the 'serious' severity means.
<jvw> regarding -a and -o in -test, aj, Kamion and vorlon said on June 8
that it is not considered RC by you guys. Okay to tag bugs with
'... uses XSIisms (test ... -a/-o ...) with sarge-ignore?
<aj> jvw: no, it's not okay for them to be marked RC in the first place
<aj> http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt is the canonical
place to look for the definition of "severe policy violation"
<aj> sarge-ignore is not possible as it is not an RC issue
<jvw> aj: so you say http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities is
<jvw> I'm not going to be able to convince people that
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities is wrong, but I
might be able to say it isn't a Sarge issue at least, but that
involves sarge-ignore, which requires your okay
<aj> it doesn't matter what that page says
<aj> http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt is canonical
<aj> if the bug doesn't match the criteria on that page it's not serious
grave or critical
So, what is written on http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
doesn't count (not to say it's crap), and it's not necessary to change
By the way, reportbug doesn't give anything close to a hint that it
could be anything else than than Debian Policy:
is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, the problem is a
violation of a 'must' or 'required' directive); may or may not affect
the usability of the package. Note that non-severe policy violations
may be 'normal,' 'minor,' or 'wishlist' bugs. (Package maintainers
may also designate other bugs as 'serious' and thus release-critical;
however, end users should not do so.)