Re: Bug mass filling

[Hubert Chan <uhoreg@debian.org>]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:40:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> said:

>         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).  [2]

Well, it says "... _roughly_ equivalent".  So it seems to me that both
places (http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer and policy section 1.1)
that attempt to correlate policy violations and bug severity do so with
some hedging, and do not try to define a direct mapping.

Given the amount of confusion on the issue (the single word "roughly" is
easily missed), I think that it would be a good idea to either update
policy so that "must"/"required" violations correspond exactly to the
release team's definition of release-critical, or to change the wording
to make it more explicit that a "must"/"required" violation is not
necessarily release-critical.

For the second option, (a very rough draft of) possible changed wording
for www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer is:

  serious
    is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a
    "must" or "required" directive, although the severity of a policy
    violation is determined by the release managers), or, in the ...

and for policy:

  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). [2]  However, this is not a direct
  mapping, and the release managers determine which violations are
  considered release-critical.

-- 
Hubert Chan <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA         http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA