On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 05:59:07AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 07:59:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > severity 308477 important > > thanks > > You are correct that it is a policy violation. However, not all policy > > violations are release-critical for a given release; see > Maybe I will sound procedural or something, but I would really prefer > if such policy violation bug were severity serious with a sarge-ignore > tag. It is important to keep track of policy violation bug that affect > sid, and it will be hard to remember all bugs that should have their > severity raised once sarge is released. As it's been explained to me by the BTS folks, use of sarge-ignore implies that the bug will become RC for etch immediately after sarge's release. For this bug, I don't see any reason to think that's the case. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature