On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:30:15PM -0500, Neal H Walfield wrote:
> This does not, IMHO, fix the problem. Those people who are naively
> reporting bugs (and who this change is intended for) are not likely to
> read this message or any documentation on this: ``brownbag, what's that?
> Hmm, must be important.'' Thus, important should be left in its current
> ``popular'' meaning, i.e. what you are calling brownbag, and a new name
> should be given to important bugs, e.g. violation.
I'm leery of leaving a severity around that's poorly defined, and
largely meaningless. The scale from critical down to wishlist, except for
"important" in the "popular" sense, is fairly clear:
* makes unrelated stuff break, introduces security holes just by
existing (critical)
* makes the package unusable (grave)
* makes the package undistributable (important/violation)
* makes the package buggy (normal)
* gives a way in which the package could be improved (wishlist)
The other problem, is that "violation" isn't really a "severity". Although
I guess "wishlist" isn't either.
Okay, so how about:
* a new severity "violation", defined as "a severe violation of
Debian policy (that is, violation of a must directive)"
* redefining the "important" severity to something like: "an
`important' bug, that should be fixed before the next release.
The package maintainer has final word on whether a bug is
important or not. Packages will not be removed prior to release
simply for having one of these bugs."
* eventually changing "important" (as well as "fixed") to be a
bug tag, rather than a severity.
Cheers,
aj, who'd like some consensus on this well before the next freeze
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpSp3pw46mkn.pgp
Description: PGP signature