On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 05:22:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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)
Actually, looking at /etc/debbugs/config on master, this isn't the case.
There's actually a "minor" severity in there too, that just happens to
not be documented. So we would *really* have:
Release critical bugs:
* critical (makes unrelated stuff break; don't even install it!)
* grave (completely broken; don't even bothering trying to run it)
* violation (doesn't conform to policy, tsktsk)
Normal bugs:
* important (really needs to be fixed, where's that -qa team?)
* normal (oopsy. someone should fix this)
* minor (whatever)
Otherwise:
* wishlist (feature requests, random whines, etc)
Which seems fairly decent. Would "serious" be a reasonable name instead
of "violation" (I'd really rather keep in the same style as the other
names...)
So, I guess, failing any better ideas or obvious problems or anything,
I guess we'll:
* add a "serious" severity for severe policy violations
* change the definition of "important" to indicate it won't be
used to remove packages from the release
* add a definition for "minor" since there doesn't seem to be
one yet
Cheers,
aj
--
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:
pgpPO8MTDxUWU.pgp
Description: PGP signature