Re: Mass bug filing: dpkg-buildpackage -A

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:29:19AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > I'd use "severity: serious", just like for a normal FTBFS.
>
> The problem with making them "severity: serious" is that I would be
> deciding on my own that those bugs are RC. Normally, the release team
> decides about what bugs are RC and which ones are not.

The release team decides what bugs they consider to be release-critical.
The severity of the bug is one criterion that they can use.

The determination of what severity to assign the bug, though, is a
function of the effects of the bug behaviour. Its value should be set
truthfully, independent of whether or not the result of a severity level
would affect the release.

You make a determination of a bug's severity by the definitions of each
severity level [0]: if a bug's behaviour best meets the definition of
“serious” the correct value is “Severity: serious”.

If “in the package maintainer's or release manager's opinion, [the bug]
makes the package unsuitable for release”, the bug is at least “serious”
severity.

If it's a “severe violation of Debian policy”, the bug is at least
“serious” severity.

Either of those are sufficient for a reporter to truthfully set the bug
report as “Severity: serious” or higher. If you determine that either of
the above definitions describe the bug you're reporting, IMO you should
truthfully set that value for the bug report.

It's still up to the release team whether the bug is critical for the
release. That's not an attribute you get to decide, and IMO you are not
making the decision for them by setting the severity of a bug report.


[0] <URL:https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities>

-- 
 \          “It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one |
  `\   trifling exception, is composed of others.” —John Andrew Holmes |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney