On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:16:34AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:25:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > FWIW, I think the main use of the `important' level should be for policy > > violations, rather than usability or security issues (which are already > > covered by critical and grave). [...] > I'd add data-loss conditions to this definition. ``grave -- [...] causes data loss [...]'' (Critical is for severe data loss) (/usr/share/doc/debian/bug-maint-info.txt, from doc-debian.deb) > (E.g., there have been > some fileutils bugs that can cause files to disappear under the right > (wrong?) circumstances. The circumstances are fairly obscure, so the > package is usable most of the time, but IMHO anything that can cause > files to vanish is release-critical.) I'd think grave would be right for this. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpnwURfZKavU.pgp
Description: PGP signature