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

Re: Bug mass filling

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:18:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> said: 

> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > * Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) [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
 first place?

        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 <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: