Re: Mass bugs filing: autopkgtest should be marked superficial (new list)
HI Holger,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:02 PM Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:21:52PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> > coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> > Ref: https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
> [...]
> > I intend to file them with "severity: serious" [...]
>
> sigh. I too would appreciate if these bugs were filed with severity:important
> in the first place, not the least to avoid discussions like these. seriously,
> these packages are only cosmetically seriously buggy and important (and normal)
> bugs should be fixed as well, anyhow. so why inflate the severity and discussions
> if the same can be achieved cheaper and much nicer by just using lower severity?
>
> please use important and announce to bump the severity (to serious) in 1-3 months
> from now, as these bugs really must not make it into bullseye! but give people
> some slack to support your cause. an important bug and being listed on d-devel
> is serious enough.
I discussed exactly this with Paul before sending the mail. So, if I
raise the bug as 'important' on 22/09 and then bump it to 'serious' on
22/11 then the autoremoval date will be set to 22/12 which will be
less than 2 months before the soft freeze. If the Release Team is ok
with having a bunch of serious bug related to autopkgtest 50 days
before the soft freeze then I can make them important now.
The world will be more on fire at that time. :)
But, just to confirm, have you also seen the last part of my mail,
that the severity can be reduced after it has been fixed in git so
that it will definitely be fixed in the archive with the next upload?
--
Regards
Sudip
Reply to: