Re: Release-critical Bugreport for July 30, 1999
- To: Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Release-critical Bugreport for July 30, 1999
- From: Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:27:30 +0200 (CEST)
- Message-id: <E11AAp0-00033a-00@night>
- In-reply-to: <19990729223017.I8613@debian.org> from Joseph Carter at "Jul 29, 1999 10:30:17 pm"
I'm replying to this because Joseph expresses a common misconception.
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 12:15:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
> > Package: epic4-script-splitfire (main)
> > Maintainer: Joseph Carter <email@example.com>
> > 41920 EVIL EVIL on publics
> While the bug is important (because what the script does is something it
> really should not be doing), it should not be considered release critical.
I'm beginning to think the name "important" was a bad idea. The sole
difference between "important" and "normal" bugs is that the former
are release-critical. If the bug is not release-critical, it should
not be severity "important".
If the script does something it really should not be doing, then that
is indeed a bug. We have a bug-tracking system for that! "normal"
severity does not mean "unimportant". The two are not opposites.
> It will be downgraded if neccessary, but I've got it flagged important so
> I am reminded to harass the upstream maintainer about a fix now and then.
This sounds like a normal, forwarded bug.
If it is not your opinion that this bug makes the package unsuitable for
release, then please set it to normal severity.