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

Re: Bug#455769: same problem on wheezy + Thinkpad X220T

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:48:09 +0100
Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> wrote:

> > This isn't the first time that you are discussing the severity of
> > bugs, and raising them to RC level instead of what they deserve,
> > which was the original severity. You did that to some of my
> > packages (for example, see #695221, for which my upload of
> > the fix is by the way overdue...).
> If a package fails to do what it is supposed to do, isn't that a valid
> argument that it is RC?

NO. It is a bug, that's all. Every bug of severity higher than
wishlist comes down to a package not doing what it is supposed to do.

When a package doesn't do what it is supposed to do, the default
severity is normal. i.e. it is entirely normal for packages to become
buggy or to fail to do what the package is supposed to do.

> > It seem to me that you believe only RC bugs can be fixed in the
> > (next) stable distribution. This reasoning is wrong. The release
> > team has by the way confirmed this. I did already fixed many
> > non-RC bugs in Wheezy, and the release team has accepted
> > them. There are hundreds (thousands?) of such examples.
> No, that is not my reasoning here.  My feeling is that these are issues
> which can and probably should be fixed before a release, to take off the
> rough edges and/or ensure users have a relatively smooth experience. 

That reasoning alone does not qualify the bug as RC.

We are a long way past "can and probably should" - at this point of the
freeze we're on "absolutely must be fixed at all costs", otherwise
we'll never actually release at all.


critical : makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system)
break, or causes serious data loss, or introduces a security hole on
systems where you install the package. 

grave : makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
accounts of users who use the package. 

serious : is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates
a must or required directive), or, in the package maintainer's or
release manager's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release.

Nothing there about rough edges or a smooth experience.

Bug submitter's opinion doesn't get to dictate final severity - it is
the maintainer and the release manager who have final say. As a final
data point, the original submitter set the initial severity to normal
and the bug has been open for 6 years. There has been ample time to fix
this if it was truly felt to be RC by any number of people who have
been using the package, including me. There have already been stable
releases with this bug unfixed. 

IMHO there is no justification for this bug being anything higher than
"normal" severity but I'm happy with the maintainer deciding to use
"important". That is the correct way to handle bug severity.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpgOZUQHPpng.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: