[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 01:39:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think the bugs should have been filed with severity: serious.
> Policy section 3.4.2 says:
>   The description field needs to make sense to anyone, even people who
>   have no idea about any of the things the package deals with.
> Only a sophist would argue that "needs to" doesn't mean "must" or
> "required".  If your boss says, "Your report needs to be on my desk by
> the end of the day," is he just giving you a gentle suggestion, or is he
> issuing a mandate.

Just for the record, in case anyone is curious, I used 'important' instead
of 'serious' because I understood 'needs to = must' from reading the
policy. However, I wasn't absolutely sure that was the case. 

Still, since many developers seem to take offense when sent a bug with
above normal severity I'm manually downgrading the bugs to 'normal' after I
review them and send the patch (obviously save for bugs which should be
closed and where indeed false positives of my faulty metric which I will 
close directly with my apologies).



Attachment: pgpVeICDC55F2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: