On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 02:30, Adam Heath wrote: > * Were was this discussed on this mailing list? All such mass filings > should be discussed here first, before being filed. Not after. You're right. I did post a question about this earlier in the day yesterday, but I didn't wait long enough for replies. I guess the problem was that I didn't see how one could object to someone reporting clear policy violations, especially in light of http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg02035.html No one denies that these are bugs. Given the number of bugs, though, I did expect that the RM would choose to ignore them. (As it happened, I stumbled across the first bug, found another ... and after looking up the qa page decided that for completeness I should report them all so that they could all be dealt with at once and in the same way (as has been done).) I'm not sure why you are so upset (as you seem to be). Over the past month we have closed about 30 of the 70 "RC" bugs. At that rate woody won't be out for another month, so there is still time to fix small "serious" bugs (if we think they're worth fixing). If you say that many of the remaining 45 "RC" bugs are ignored, then that's fine --- ignore these too. All this makes me wonder how many other bugs have been swept under the rug in order to get woody out by a deadline. -- Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part