Bug#621840: lintian: please warning when urgency in changes does not match the changelog
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-04-10 04:24, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> writes:
>
>> Nope, I would keep the dpkg-genchanges behaviour to choose the highest,
>> but ask the developer to be explicit about it. The good thing about the
>> current behaviour is that if you import a bunch of changes from (e.g.)
>> Ubuntu and one of them closes a security issue, then as long as you
>> remember the -v option, then you get the right urgency.
>> The idea was to make Lintian nag if there is a mismatch, mostly
>> because if there is a security/priority issue, there is no problem in
>> bumping the current changelog entry (to confirm it) and if there is not
>> an issue, there is no reason for the urgency to be inflated (causing
>> reduced time before testing migration).
>
> Oh, okay, I see.
>
> Hm. I guess I have no strong opinion. It feels weird to me to tag the
> most recent upload as high urgency even if there's nothing in that change
> to warrant high urgency just because earlier changes were high urgency,
> but this may just be a personal twitch that I'd get over.
>
> I don't know how frequently this might happen. It might be worth asking
> the release team what they think.
>
Alternatively we could look for "urgency/priority" in the changelog
entry (similar to the "upload to unstable" check we currently do), if
you feel that is less weird.
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=XCHT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: