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

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:30:22AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> writes:
> > severity 306015 grave
> > thanks
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded 
> > it, it would be nice if you would:
> > - Cc me
> > - send a better explanation than "This is not a missing dependency, feh"
> Looking at the bug log, it seems that you had no business increasing
> the severity in the first place.  You didn't report the bug, you
> aren't the maintainer, and now you are playing BTS wars.  It's up to
> the maintainer and Steve, secondarily it's up to the submitter of the
> bug, and it doesn't seem to concern you at all.

You seem to confuse this with bug closing. It's common practice to 
adjust the severity of a bug to a RC one if a RC issue was mistakenly 
reported as non-RC, and neither your Developers Reference nor your 
release team have ever disagreed with this practice.

The alternative would be to send a second bug for the same issue with 
the correct RC severity. If this makes you happy I can do this in the 

> This bug does not make the package "unusable or mostly so" because it
> has a trivial workaround available.  So it was wrong of you to mark it

Once upon a time, Debian was famous for it's working upgrades.
You can workaround many bugs - but why do you emphasize on the fact that 
there was "a trivial workaround available" if the fix for the bug is 

> grave, unless you are just seeking attention.  It might be "serious",
> but the submitter himself thought it was "important".  You didn't give
> any reasons for busting in and changing it.  That's wrong.  

grave <-> serious isn't worth a discussion since there's not a big 
difference between them (both are RC)

Even Steve had always agreed that missing dependencies that break 
partial upgrades from woody were RC bugs And even in the email were he 
downgraded this bug he only wrongly stated "This is not a missing 
dependency" - not that missing dependencies weren't RC.

> Thomas



       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Reply to: