The wnpp package has been excluded from the RC bug list, btw, so we're
back down to 50 or something bugs, rather than 200. We'll go through them
in more detail before potato's declared stable. Anyway.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 10:28:22AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> The tags to be used and corresponding severities would be:
> O important The package has been Orphaned. It needs a new
> maintainer as soon as possible. If the package
> as a Priority of standard, required or essential,
> the severity should be set to grave.
What do you mean by "orphaned" here? The Maintainer field has been
set to "debian-qa@lists.debian.org"? Or that it should be moved to
project/orphaned?
Why should this be anything more than a normal bug?
"important", "grave" and "critical" bugs generally mean a package needs to
be removed from the distribution. Orphaning a package, in the normal case,
doesn't imply this. Does it?
In addition, there doesn't seem to be any real point making any of these
bugs "grave". They don't in and of themselves make the system unusable, or
cause data loss, or introduce security holes.
I'd suggest having packages maintained by -qa be a "normal" bug,
unless they're standard or above in which case perhaps "important"
could be justified.
I'm not entirely sure how a release-critical bug could be justified for
this though. What package should be removed in the event of such a bug? What
if no one steps up to maintain it, but it's otherwise completely bug free?
Should we never release?
It might be useful, by contrast, to mark the bug as "important" if the
package should be removed from the dist and placed in project/orphaned. I'm
not sure why the bug shouldn't be filed against the package itself in that
case though.
> ITO important The current maintainer of the package has stated
> his Intention To Orphan it. The package is being
> maintained, but perhaps not in the best possible
> way due to lack of time, resources or something
> similar. The package needs a new maintainer.
> WTO wishlist The current maintainer Wishes To Orphan the
> package. He's currently maintaining the package,
> but wishes someone else would do that. This is
> different from ITO in the sense that if noone
> steps up and adopts this package, the world as we
> know it won't come to an end.
Erm. If the entire world will come to an end, perhaps ITO's should be
"critical" not just "important". One presumes armageddon will cause
severe data loss, among other things.
Really though, what's the difference between these two things? The
jump from a "wishlist" bug to an "important" one is pretty severe,
for something that doesn't seem to have a definable difference. I notice
there don't seem to be any WTO's there at the moment.
> ITP normal Someone Intents To Package this. Please submit a
> package description along with copyright and URL
> in such a report.
This will make those go to wnpp@debian.org rather than
debian-devel@lists.debian.org. Is this a good thing? Should the former
be gated to the latter?
It'd make more sense to me to have:
wishlist: RFP, ITP, ITO, ITA, W
normal: O
and maybe:
important: O(>=standard)
. That is, the bugs which don't really need any action are just noted
as wishlists, and only the bugs which do are normal or above.
> W adopt the package, upload to the main archive and close this
> bug once the package has been installed. If you are going
> to do this, retitle the bug with 'ITA:' + the old title.
> This is necessary in order for other people to know the
> package is being adopted.
What happens if/when the package is removed from project/orphaned?
A lot of this stuff should probably be automated. When a package gets
installed in unstable, any appropriate RFP/ITP's don't have any reason
to be open anymore. If a package gets RFP'ed or ITP'ed multiple times,
the reports should probably be merged. If a package gets uploaded with the
maintainer set to debian-qa (or changed from debian-qa to someone else),
an appropriate O report should probably be opened (or closed, resp.).
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:
pgplnKZei57Ba.pgp
Description: PGP signature