Bug#91276: PROPOSED 2001/03/25] update policy to match new serious severity
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:30:08AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > --- policy.sgml.old Sun Mar 25 22:33:31 2001
> > +++ policy.sgml Sun Mar 25 22:33:52 2001
> > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@
> > </p>
> > <p>
> > These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug
^^^^^^^
> > - severities <em>important</em> (for <em>must</em> or
> > + severities <em>serious</em> (for <em>must</em> or
> > <em>required</em> directive violations), <em>normal</em>
> > (for <em>should</em> or <em>recommended</em> directive
> > violations) and <em>wishlist</em> (for <em>optional</em>
> What about important severity? I would suggest the following:
*shrug* Does it matter? I'm not worried either way.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Reply to: