Colin Watson wrote: > After all, we want the bugs fixed, not ignored, right? So > listen to the people who are suggesting better ways to get > them fixed, such as a good patch to the override file. > QA work shouldn't have to involve bulldozers. I presume, though, that it is the maintainers who have to figure out how to rectify the priorities. If X's package has been assigned a "priority violation" bug, then X has to figure out whether to change his priority or reassign the bug to the dependency. ... The usual process. This isn't one big bug but many small ones (plus one for ftp.debian.org). Another alternative would be to modify policy to change the "must" to a "should" in 2.2. A lot of the problem here seems to be that people think that the priority rule in 2.2 is trivial, so they object having it used as justification for filing bug reports. The idea was advanced that some sort of serious-but-not-RC severity level be implemented (using tags or otherwise). But Debian already has that system, with the RM deciding which serious bugs are RC --- as he explained recently: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg02035.html I don't see a problem with the existing system in principle. -- Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part