Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

[Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>]

Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
> > > RC any more,
> > Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity
> > for FTBFS on non-RC archs
> Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be
> serious and etch-ignore instead. Or perhaps serious bugs that are only
> tagged with a SCC arch should be automatically treated as etch-ignore.

Serious/RC bugs are for ones the whole project should focus on; I don't 
see much point giving that level of priority to non-release arches, 
though YMMV.

No objections whatsoever to having a "arch-s390" tag (or a separate 
Architecture: field, or whatever) for marking problems that are "RC" for 
a particular arch though. I'm not sure there's necessarily any great 
reason to have a FTBFS on a random package for a random non-release arch 
be prioritised particularly highly by either the porting team or the 
package maintainer though.

Cheers,
aj