Re: Bug mass filling
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
> * Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.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'
> > Anyways, I've always thought the bts severity levels and release
> > criticality were orthogonal things. i.e. it's more complicated than
> > just saying "critical, grave and serious levels are RC".
>
> That is wrong.
>
> > There are
> > important or even normal issues (as per definition of the severity
> > levels) that are more release critical than serious (again, as per
> > definition of the severity levels) bugs.
>
> Wrong. A bug is release-critical :<=> the bug has severity serious,
> grave, critical and has not been given an excemption by the release team
You may have missed the "thought" part of the sentence.
Mike
Reply to: