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

Re: Bug mass filling

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
> > > > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
> > > No. Please see the top of http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt
> > > for which bugs are critical, grave and serious.
> > That is irrelevant for the severity of bugs.
> > This is the relevant definition:
> > serious         is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, the
> > problem is a violation of a 'must' or 'required' directive)
> That definition, as listed on
> <http://www.us.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities>, links straight to the
> release team's RC bug policy.

Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the
serious bug description...

Anyways, I've always thought the bts severity levels and release
criticality were orthogonal things. i.e. it's more complicated than
just saying "critical, grave and serious levels are RC". There are
important or even normal issues (as per definition of the severity
levels) that are more release critical than serious (again, as per
definition of the severity levels) bugs.

But yet, violation of the Debian policy should be granted serious level.
etch-ignore is here to make the issue not release critical.


Reply to: