[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#97671: Remove, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
Para: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>; 97671@bugs.debian.org <97671@bugs.debian.org>
Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
Data: Sábado, 22 de Junho de 2002 08:34
Assunto: Bug#97671: RFD: Essential packages, /, and /usr

Quer ter seu próprio endereço na Internet?
Garanta já o seu e ainda ganhe cinco e-mails personalizados.
DomíniosBOL - http://dominios.bol.com.br

On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 02:02:00AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
>  Branden> * "Release critical bugs are _very_ rare."; and
>  Branden> * Release critical bugs should be the domain of the Release Manager,
>  Branden> Then we really don't need a tight connection between the
>  Branden> "serious" severity and release-criticality at all.

Sorry, but this doesn't follow. Treating "serious" as a severity or a
tag is largely immaterial, and the fundamental point of the "serious"
severity or tag is as an aid to release management.

>  Branden> The Release Manager can strip the "release-critical" tag off
>  Branden> of any bug he wants.  This is how things have *always*
>  Branden> worked in reality. 

No, it's not. In reality, things have always just been ignored, rather
than being formally stripped of "release-criticality".

> I find myself in strong and vehement agrement with Branden on
>  this point.

Branden brought up a number of interesting and good points (and, even
better, simple) in the discussion he's referencing, but it was at the end
of a pretty long winded and vicious argument about the referenced bug,
and there was too much of an "agree to anything just to get this over
with" on my behalf. Which isn't to say I don't agree with much of it,
but I need some time to sit and look at this calmly before I can have
a considered opinion on it.

OTOH, there is one part that I have had plenty of opportunity to think
about: and personally I don't believe debian-policy should have _any_
influence over the severity of a bug. If there're already good reasons for
increasing the severity of a bug without policy, then that's good enough.
If there aren't, policy shouldn't be forcing them on people.

There're plenty of ways we can improve Debian without raising the members
of the policy list as being better or more powerful than other developers.

Beyond _all_ other things, this is the major problem with the serious
severity and release-critical bugs (and debian-policy@) at the moment.

And as much as I'd like to be able to say it's better to have -policy be
"better and more powerful" than the release manager for general democratic
and consensus principles, I'm sorry, but it simply hasn't worked, and
I'm yet to see *anyone* even remotely interested in making it work.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Reply to: