Re: why the package description bugs should have been "serious" (surprised?)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 01:39:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 07:05:28PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > As one who didn't get any of Javier's bugs :), I'd've been happy if he'd
> > filed them with a more sensible severity and made sure that his list of
> > packages was up to date so that a dozen of them didn't end up with
> > unknown-package. But apart from that ...
>
> I think the bugs should have been filed with severity: serious.
>
> Think I'm crazy? This opinion is entirely consistent with the letter
> and spririt of the Debian Policy Manual and the definitions of our bug
> severities.
[...]
> I reiterate my argument, which I last expounded on last November[1], that
> it is unwise to couple the "serious" severity to the policy manual in
> this way:
That's nice, but we've already decoupled the serious severity from the
policy manual, at least as far as sarge goes. See
http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt.
(That does say "Packages must have a useful extended description", but I
think that if you were going to file over 700 bugs on this subject -
that is, more release-critical bugs than we currently have open in total
- then the onus would be on you to demonstrate that the existing
extended description is not merely suboptimal, or useless to some
people, but useless.)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: