Re: Bug mass filling
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:18:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > * Manoj Srivastava (email@example.com) [061023 20:14]:
>> >> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism
>> >> for making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
>> > Etch-ignore tags are usually used for issues where we expect them
>> > to be RC after etch releases. If we think an issue won't be RC
>> > for etch+1 etc, then adjusting the severity is correct.
>> I would assume violations of policy MUST directives are either bugs
>> in policy, which should be fixed, or an issue in the package that
>> needs to be fixed after etch releases.
>> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt directives
>> that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug opened on
>> policy with severity important for every one of them.
> Why? If these issues are downgraded to "should"s in policy, doesn't
> that again introduce ambiguity about whether a violation of that
> particular "should" is a bug, unnecessarily weakening the overall
> quality of the distro?
Why on earth would there be such an ambiguity? Should
violations are bugs, or severity normal.
And why is the distro quality su=ffering? Aren't the RM's of
the opinion that these requirements are not worth following in the
Either the policy dictum has to be followed, and a bug results
(must - serious; should - normal), or the dictum should be removed
from policy and moved to, say, dev ref.
I can give you my word, but I know what it's worth and you don't. Nero
Wolfe, "Over My Dead Body"
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C