Re: Redefining critical bug severity (was: how to deal with a missed so bump already uploaded ?)
On Sat, 17 May 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think defining critical as:
>
> 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'm OK with either adding additional clarification or adopting this
language.
In my opinion, the wording of the severity levels is really there to
give bug submitter guidance to the initial severity they select; ideally
it represents the consensus view of most maintainers. If it doesn't
represent the consensus view, I'd like to change it.
Individual maintainers should feel free[0] to use the severity levels of
bugs to set their own personal priority without regard to what the
definition says.[1]
0: With the exception of whether bugs have severity >= serious; that can
be overridden by the RMs.
1: But they shouldn't be surprised when a submitter follows the
"consensus view".
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
Life would be way easier
if I were easier.
-- a softer world #473
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=473
Reply to: