On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 09:35:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Should the buggy package be removed from the next release of debian if
> > > it is not fixed?
> > Except we're straight back to complete subjectivity.
> Ah but you see the answer to this one could be disregarded somewhat if
> the answers to the two preceding questions were "no". Ok, I know, those
> questions are subjective too. I just tried to frame my idea in the
> context of the current severity definitions, it's really orthagonal to
> them though.
Well, the key point, IMO, is that it's not the submitters job to work out
whether a package should be removed from the distribution or not: it's the
submitter's job to report a problem; it's *our* (Debian as a whole) job to
work out which bugs should mean a package gets removed or not.
I'm not really bothered if "important" bugs become too much effort for
most users to file: most policy violations that are that severe can be
detected (and filed) automatically by lintian or something else anyway
(and, iirc, that's more or less what "important" was originally used for,
back in hamm or whenever). And in general, it's not *too* great a problem
if some policy violation does slip into a stable release in any case.
This alone doesn't address the issue of how we can stop the ever
increasing bug count, though, or generally improve our handling of bugs.
I don't think it has to to be a good thing to do anyway, though.
Hmm. Apparently ~400 new bugs were opened yesterday or so. Odd. This
may be due to BTS bugs :(
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:
pgpFPjzwkGoot.pgp
Description: PGP signature