Re: Redefining critical bug severity (was: how to deal with a missed so bump already uploaded ?)
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 08:46:20AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The confusion seems to always be around the "unrelated software" part of
> that definition. The intended meaning is completely unrelated software on
> the system, indicating a package that's mangling the system in some
> fundamental way, but I've frequently seen people believe, sincerely, that
> reverse dependencies, Perl programs that use a buggy module, or X programs
> on a system with a buggy video driver qualify as unrelated software.
>
> This makes me think that part of the bug definition is adding more
> confusion than clarity. Should we just drop it?
I must admit I never really understood the meaning of unrelated software
and it does cause confusion. It could mean anything from anything that
isn't in that specific package (so includes dependencies), or anything
except itself and depencies (so includes suggests), reverse depends
or something else.
> makes the entire system unusable, or causes serious data loss, or
> introduces a security hole on systems where you install the package
>
> is closer to how we actually use the severity, and would avoid some of
> these bug severity arguments.
I agree. I also agree that there isn't, for me, much difference between
the top three severities on how I treat the bugs.
- Craig
--
Craig Small (@smallsees) http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5
Reply to: