On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:07:07PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:52:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > * Policy is not a stick to beat people with. It's a guideline, that should be > > > followed closely, but not exactly. > > > > Doesn't stop people from whacking my packages with it; > > bugs.debian.org/97671. > > I hope you're not referring to my initial raising it to serious...? Yes, and aj's insistence that it should stay there, which does not appear consistent with his decision that 88 other serious policy violations should be closed outright. I don't have have a personal beef with you or Anthony, or your respective interpretations of the Policy manual or the "true meaning" of documents like http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer, which contains blatant falsehoods and needs revision[1]. The issue to my mind is the nature of the BTS itself, and the audience it is most intended to serve: users, developers, or the Release Manager. My personal opinion is that the BTS should serve the developers first and foremost. It *should* also be able to serve the users, but until it has a conception of bugs against versions of packages as opposed to a non-temporal notion of a package, it's going to fill that role only poorly. I think the Release Manager has other tools at his disposal for discernment of release-criticality. Whether those tools work to the satisfaction of a given Release Manager or not is another question. [1] "Problems in packages can only be considered fixed once a package that includes the bug fix enters the Debian archive." At best this is misleading when the changelog-bug-auto-closing feature is used in conjunction with the "New Incoming" system. -- G. Branden Robinson | I am sorry, but what you have Debian GNU/Linux | mistaken for malicious intent is branden@debian.org | nothing more than sheer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II
Attachment:
pgpTgYQJzDORt.pgp
Description: PGP signature