Bug#846002: Lowering severity
Hi Holger,
On 05.12.2016 13:46, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'm sorry that I failed to respond yet.
I am quite angry about this: You basically opened this bug by stating
that you will do an NMU within 4-5 days, but you already knew that you
would not have time to discuss the bug before you planned this to happen.
This puts quite some pressure to us to respond within a reasonable time
-- and then you (who clearly expressed how important you think this is)
hide yourself and fail to respond.
This all happens after half a year of silence from you, where we could
have discussed this and find alternatives without too much pressure.
And you even didn't check the current status before filing the bug.
Sorry, but this doesn't sound like a sensible behavior to get a good
solution.
> Still, this doesnt make a policy violation a non-policy violation.
> (Priority: important is *wrong* for this package.)
It is as wrong as for tasksel-data: if we want to have blends selection
in the installer, then this information needs to be available there.
Lowering the bug severity was done since I proposed so and did not get a
veto reply (covering my arguments) from you within a week.
> You are forcing the installation of blends-tasks on every Debian
> system. This is *not ok*.
In principle, the whole package could be integrated into tasksel-data.
However, this makes the work more complicated for the (already
overloaded) tasksel maintainers, since they also would have to deal with
the integration of the individual blends. The current solution keeps the
maintenance of the blends tasks in the installer in the responsibility
of the blends team.
I don't see why this solution is worse than to have it combined in a
single package (or file) -- it is even better since it moves
responsibilities away from an already overloaded team.
> I will try to reply ASAP, but… I might fail and just reassign to
> tech-ctte. (I also find it very hard to find time for this as you failed
> to understand the problem with the current implementation from the
> beginning, so I'm doubtful whether trying again (for like the 4th or 5th
> time will change anything.)
I brought some arguments. It would be nice if you could respond to them.
Since you even didn't check the current state, it is hard to discuss
here. As I explained, your arguments are already handled with version
0.6.95.
I would prefer to have the arguments discussed first instead of just
re-assigning to tech-ctte (which you did while I writing this reply, and
before you even started to handle Andreas' and my arguments).
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: