Re: 88 Priority violations in woody
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 01:30:20AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > Yes, policy does say what you say it does. That's not at issue.
> > However, blindly filing bugs, without full understanding of the
> > ramifications, will very quickly get you severly larted.
>
> BTW bugs stand: we agree on the fact that they are policy violations,
> OTOH they are not RC. I'm not sure that they shold have been closed.
> IMHO we should handle them, in a different way though.
>
> Bugs have to be reopened with a whislst or minor priority. Maintainers
> should fix them, or explain why the package processed has this bug. If
> problem does not belong to the package, the bug should be reassigned
> to ftp-master or other package to have a track and let us fix them
> later.
Don't we all have better things to do? The ftpmasters are already
tracking this. Without exception the maintainers of the affected
packages cannot change the priorities without going through ftpmaster,
and I don't see the point in reassigning 88 bugs to ftp.d.o when they're
already aware of it.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: