Re: Goals for 1.3?
> : - 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.
The idea of "critical bugs" was not for old bugs, but rather those that
showed important flaws than really need to be fixed. Adding long-standing
bugs to the critical list is just an enhancement to get those that have
been hanging around fixed.
In most cases, most bugs of the type you describe can simply be marked
as "forwarded" to the upstream author and then they will no longer be
noticed as "old".
Requests are not technically bugs, but it is nice to track them, as you
say. Such things I have no trouble in taking off the critical list. It
would get re-added after every release, but just mail me again and I'll
remove it again.
> : - general "threading" policy (???) [6]
>
> What does this mean?
Check the footnote for more information.
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Searching for something? Look to us! http://www.verisim.com/ferret/
--
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: