Hi Christoph, On Sonntag, 22. Juni 2014, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > To be honest, Holger, I don't know why you've asked me to report these > issues at all, [...] so they are tracked and easy to be referenced - #752275 is way better than several message-ids on lists.d.o. > But now I just wonder... what advantages to people have from this > mentality of always re-setting the severity when it's not yet fully > clear and agreed upon whether there is an issue or not? > I mean are DDs somehow punished for having >important bugs open? why do you think bugs of severity lower than serious are punishment? > Even if my bug report was wrong, and the issue wouldn't apply... it > feels like rather simply hiding away such bugs. Setting an appropriate severity is not hiding a problem. Also, so far you havent replied to whether you agree that all your three concerns are addressed? > And coming back to you, Holger, and some others who complained why I > brought that up on d-d and not in small little bug reports: > It's just that... you always have to fight windmills, maintainers and > other involved people who have no sense of security, simply don't care > or even actively hide these things under the carpet. Again: having a proper severity is useful, not hiding. > Apart from that: > My reports there weren't obvious spam or completely bogus... so it means > I probably had at least something in my mind when I reported them. > Given that I don't believe any DDs or the security team is publicly > whipped on a daily basis for echo +security or >important bugs that are > open... I think it's rather impolite if not rude behaviour to more or > less blindly change severity/tags or titles without any chat with the > reporter. True, thats why I tagged 752275 moreinfo and asked some specific questions. Maybe this bug is important indeed, but atm I cannot see why it would be. If 752275 would still be of RC severity it would prevent the package to enter jessie and prevent us from providing wheezy-backports too. *That* to be considered punishment of our users I would agree. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.