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

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

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.


Reply to: