Re: why the package description bugs should have been "serious" (surprised?)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: why the package description bugs should have been "serious" (surprised?)
From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:27:09 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20030911192709.GA11294@mails.so.argh.org>
Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20030911183911.GF9073@deadbeast.net>
References: <20030620155309.GA7065@dat.etsit.upm.es> <[🔎] 20030909203624.GA15172@dat.etsit.upm.es> <[🔎] 20030910062206.GA1542@tildemh.com> <[🔎] 20030910174010.GF3408@deadbeast.net> <[🔎] 20030910180528.GA5340@riva.ucam.org> <[🔎] 20030911183911.GF9073@deadbeast.net>

* Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) [030911 20:50]:
> I think the bugs should have been filed with severity: serious.

Yes and no. Your argumentation is valid for the cases where the
description is really not making sense for administrators, and I
second your arguments in this cases.

However, there are cases where the description is just "not too good",
but not a policy violation. In this cases a severity of wishlist would
be more appropriate than important or serious.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to:

References:
- Done (was Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations)
  - From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
- Re: Done (was Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations)
  - From: Mark Howard <mh@debian.org>
- Re: Done (was Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations)
  - From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
- Re: Done (was Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations)
  - From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
- why the package description bugs should have been "serious" (surprised?)
  - From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: packages/projects/positions up for adoption
Next by Date: Re: why the package description bugs should have been "serious" (surprised?)
Previous by thread: Re: why the package description bugs should have been "serious" (surprised?)
Next by thread: Re: why the package description bugs should have been "serious" (surprised?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread