Re: On maintainers not responding to bugs
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:40:07 +0100, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
>> The goal as I understood the OP was to discourage letting bugs (of
>> 'normal' severity or above) sit unacknowledged while the package
>> moves forward with further uploads. There was nothing in the
>> proposal about addressing the speed of fixes.
>
> Allow me to quote from the OP:
>
> What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to
> migrate from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports
> with severity >= normal?
>
> Thus, if you have a package with any unanswered important or normal
> bugs, it will not progress. In order to assure propogation, you must
> respond rapidly to any bug that is filed with these severities, even
> though this has nothing to do with fixing the bug. This is a technical
> impedance to a maintainer getting useful work done, like fixing RC
> bugs in testing, and as such is not something that I can condone.
I believe that this is a false economy: I think that the goodwill
generated by acknowledging bugs in a respectful manner, even with no
information beyond "I saw it", will in turn generate help/work that
exceeds the value of the work expended by making the acknowledgements.
(Note that I have no position on requiring acks by technical means.)
Reid
Reply to: