Re: Delegation for the Release Team
On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 09:02 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> It's seemed intuitively obvious to me that a "release goal" could
> equally be defined as "a new criterion by which a package can be judged
> to be RC-buggy".
One of the defining points of release goals (at least as they've
historically existed) is that the issues they cover are _not_
release-critical.
> Since "deciding what issues are release-critical" is,
> per the delegation announcement, part of the job of the Release Team,
> that would naturally seem to fall under their purview. (Conflicting with
> this is the fact that, IIRC, the criteria for "release-critical" status
> are defined in policy.)
Policy indicates that violations of "must" or "required" guidelines
"will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian
distribution" and are therefore "roughly equivalent to [...] serious".
It does not touch at all on the other RC severities and its definition
of serious is not all-encompassing, since "maintainer believes package
to be unsuitable for release" is sufficient for a severity:serious bug
and owner@bugs - although iirc he was also RM at the time - passed
responsibility for deciding exactly what constitutes a "serious enough"
policy violation to the release managers some years ago. (At least one
current member of owner@ has expressed a desire to bring the two sets of
issues back in line, but there's at least one current difference between
policy must/should issues and the RC policy for jessie.)
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: