Re: Bug mass filling
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > * Manoj Srivastava (email@example.com) [061023 20:14]:
> >> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism for
> >> making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
> > Etch-ignore tags are usually used for issues where we expect them to
> > be RC after etch releases. If we think an issue won't be RC for
> > etch+1 etc, then adjusting the severity is correct.
> I would assume violations of policy MUST directives are either
> bugs in policy, which should be fixed, or an issue in the package
> that needs to be fixed after etch releases.
> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt
> directives that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug
> opened on policy with severity important for every one of them.
Why? If these issues are downgraded to "should"s in policy, doesn't that
again introduce ambiguity about whether a violation of that particular
"should" is a bug, unnecessarily weakening the overall quality of the
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.