On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:30:15PM -0500, Neal H Walfield wrote: > This does not, IMHO, fix the problem. Those people who are naively > reporting bugs (and who this change is intended for) are not likely to > read this message or any documentation on this: ``brownbag, what's that? > Hmm, must be important.'' Thus, important should be left in its current > ``popular'' meaning, i.e. what you are calling brownbag, and a new name > should be given to important bugs, e.g. violation. I'm leery of leaving a severity around that's poorly defined, and largely meaningless. The scale from critical down to wishlist, except for "important" in the "popular" sense, is fairly clear: * makes unrelated stuff break, introduces security holes just by existing (critical) * makes the package unusable (grave) * makes the package undistributable (important/violation) * makes the package buggy (normal) * gives a way in which the package could be improved (wishlist) The other problem, is that "violation" isn't really a "severity". Although I guess "wishlist" isn't either. Okay, so how about: * a new severity "violation", defined as "a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, violation of a must directive)" * redefining the "important" severity to something like: "an `important' bug, that should be fixed before the next release. The package maintainer has final word on whether a bug is important or not. Packages will not be removed prior to release simply for having one of these bugs." * eventually changing "important" (as well as "fixed") to be a bug tag, rather than a severity. Cheers, aj, who'd like some consensus on this well before the next freeze -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpSp3pw46mkn.pgp
Description: PGP signature