Re: Bug#97671: 88 Priority violations in woody
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 08:08:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But if the bug severity is supposed to be fixed and objective,
> and RCness is separate, I am confused why the xutils bug was
> _upgraded_ to serious, and these other serious bugs are
> downgraded. (We already have bugscan to prevent the count from
> getting confusing due to all these serious but not rc bugs).
The "Priority mismatch" bugs were closed, not downgraded, and that was
done because they're already being tracked outside of the BTS in a much
more convenient way. One problem with them is that we simply can't fix
many of them (the hppa libstdc++ bugs) -- it's more important to have
i386 not have non-standard packages marked as standard than to have
hppa's priorities consistent. Another problem is that to have the bugs
fixed, ftpmaster needs to handle them, and having 80 bugs reassigned
to ftpmaster over the next couple of days is unhelpful in the extreme.
Another problem, really, is that that clause should never have been
made a "must" in the first place -- it led existing practice rather
than following it (see bug 64437, greping for "not depend on packages"
for historical context, if you like).
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org