On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:00:45 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> said:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:49:01 -0400, Hubert Chan <uhoreg@debian.org>
> said:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:46:23 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
>> <srivasta@debian.org> said: [...]
>>>> 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.
>>> where does release criticality jump in here from? Policy has no
>>> mention of RC in this context, I see no reason to suddenly inject
>>> one.
>> Well, I did say that it was a very rough draft. ;)
>> Second try: "... However, this is not a direct mapping, and the
>> release managers determine the severity of each violation."
> Direct mapping of *WHAT*? are you falling into the assumption
> that serious == RC? Why?
No, the previous sentence (which is what we currently have in policy)
defines a mapping of serious bug <=> "must"/"required" directive
violation, and minor/normal/important bug <=> "should"/"recommended"
directive violation, and wishlist bug <=> "optional". That's the
mapping that it is referring to.
My understanding is that the release team treats that as an approximate
mapping, and the current wording of policy allows this due to the use of
the word "roughly".
("Mapping" may not be the best word to use in policy. But like I said,
it's a rough draft.)
--
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