Re: On Bugs
> Look, there are two questions here, they're both fairly straightforward:
> 1) "important", "grave" and "critical" bugs generally ensure a
> package will *not* be released. What, exactly, are the sorts of
> bugs that should come under these categories? What, exactly, makes
> a package unsuitable for release?
I accept this assertion.
My problem is that numerous bugs which probably should have been fixed were
downgraded so we could release. This goes back to my earlier statement of "we
need to reconsider what is 'released'". A package of priority extra is in no
way an integral part of Debian and will likely not appear on the first CD. So
perhaps we should focus on packages of Standard or better, dealing with the
bugs we find. I am sorry but I do consider a package which is 99.9% useless to
color blind people a problem. color blindness is more common in men, and there
are studies that show it is even more common in Computer Scientist males.
> Blithely abusing the "important" severity to answer question two is *not*
> particularly good for either organising bugs *or* for release management.
> Using the "important" severity for bugs that aren't important enough to get
> the package dropped is not the way to go.
AJ, this is nothing against anything you or anyone did. I am trying to clean
up Debian's policy here, not the actions of people.
- Re: On Bugs
- From: David Starner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: On Bugs
- From: Anthony Towns <email@example.com>