Re: Goals for 1.3?
In article <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.95.961221003910.3912E-100000@klee> you wrote:
:
: - What should we do about packages that still have "critical" bugs at
: release time?
"It depends." I have a philosophical problem with the notion that just because
a bug report has been open for a long time that it should become a critical
bug. Two of the packages that I adopted a while back have "old bugs" open.
In the case of one of the packages, there are two reports that amount to
enhancement requests... and the package isn't apparently being actively
maintained or developed by the upstream author. I may make time to add the
requested features someday, so leaving the bugs open as reminders seems like a
good thing to do.
If having "bugs" stay open in the database is generally considered gauche, then
maybe instead of a complicated and potentially controversial "severity" flag
for each bug in the database, we could add another state in addition to
"open/closed/forwarded", to which bug reports that are really enhancement
requests could be state-changed?
: * No bug reports older than 12 months at release time
: (bcwhite@verisim.com)
As indicated above, I think this is simplistic.
: - general "threading" policy (???) [6]
What does this mean?
: - All packages to be in new source format
This would greatly improve the speed with which the sparc and alpha ports get
done.
Bdale
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: