Re: Bug mass filling
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:27:24 +1000, Anthony Towns <email@example.com> said:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 04:06:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Even then, it's only "serious" if it violates the release policy
>> > [http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt]. Hence the reason
>> > that
>> No. A bug may be serious and yet not RC, as I understand it.
> That's not correct. [serious, grave, and critical] are the "release
> critical" severities, though some release critical issues won't be
> fixed for any given release, due to either being not known about or
> understood (ie, not filed at all, or not given the appropriate
> severity or attention), or given a specific exemption by the release
> team ("etch-ignore").
So riddle me this: currently, policy states that violating a
"must" or "required" directive in policy is a serious bug; which
seems to fly in the face of the release process having appropriated
the "serious" severity.
Are we removing the policy that violations of policy
requirements are serious bugs? Is there new guidance on what policy
violation bug severities ought to be? Are such bugs to be filed
under "normal"? Or "important"?
My understanding, which seems to be flawed, was policy
violations were taken seriously (heh), and policy violation meant to
be ignored for a release were granted special dispensation (remained
serious, but were exempt).
If this is not the case, we should change the policy, and drop
any reference to bug severities for packages violating policy.
Personally, think that is not a good idea, since adherence to
technical policy seems to be the underpinning of the high quality of
implementation we always had, but perhaps my mileage has varied.
The happiest time of a person's life is after his first
divorce. J.K. Galbraith
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C