Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs
Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> writes:
> 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.
If you are also encountering the bug, then this is true, but I would
expect you, being as knowledgeable as you are, to indicate that in the
bug report and add yourself as a submitter.
>> 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
> trivial?
I agree that it's a bug. You seem to be saying that if it isn't an RC
bug, then it's no bug at all. I think it is a bug--for exactly the
reasons you state--but that doesn't make it grave.
>> 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)
Oh, I see, in your world there is "RC" and then "nothing". The point
you are missing is that it is the maintainer and the release manager
who get to decide, not you.
> 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.
This seems to indicate that he thinks there is a different explanation
for the bug, and that while adding the package in question as a
dependency makes it go away, this is not the correct fix. But I can
only guess, as can you, which means it would be good to hold off
until he can say rather than play BTS tag.
Thomas
Reply to: