Re: Bug mass filling
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:28:54 +1000, Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Gee. Don't we already have something very like this?
>> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>> _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_,
>> _normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive
>> violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items). 
> Those classifications haven't been monitored or updated, so no, we
Yes, we do. You seem to be conflating the severity and RC-ness
of a bug -- bugs have severities, and the release team decides which
bugs are RC or not.
> IIRC that changed pretty soon after woody's release, with the
> creation of a specific list of RC criteria maintained by the release
> team. The woody policy addenda , for instance, said:
> Bashisms generally aren't release-critical, even when they're
> in scripts marked #!/bin/sh. They may be release-critical if
> their breakage causes other problems that are release-critical
> if they ever happen.
> In contrast, policy still states:
> Thus, shell scripts specifying `/bin/sh' as interpreter should
> only use POSIX features. If a script requires non-POSIX
> features from the shell interpreter, the appropriate shell must
> be specified in the first line of the script (e.g.,
> Is a bashism in a /bin/sh script a normal bug ("should only use
> POSIX features"), or a RC bug ("the appropriate shell bust be
> specified")? It's much easier to work out by just looking at the
> rc_policy text file maintained by the RM team .
Neither. It is a non RC serious bug.
Quod erat demonstrandum. [Thus it is proven. For those who wondered
WTF QED means.]
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C