Re: Must and should again
I guess there are two conflicting desires here:
(1) The Acting Release Manager's desire to have it clear what
constitutes an RC bug.
(2) Developers' desires to know what "must" be done in all cases and
what "ought" to be done (but there may be exceptions), and what is
currently a "desirable thing" but is likely to one day become an
RC requirement.
This is indicating to me that Anthony's view is correct for his needs,
and Sam and my (and all of the other people who've raised the same
issue in recent months) is correct for other people's needs.
Since policy is trying to fulfill two different needs which are
necessarily in tension, it is no surprise that there is no agreement
on this one.
I'm going to go back to the drawing board and think about what can be
done to satisfy both parties.
Anthony is right: policy consists of GUIDELINES; the question of what
can and what can't go in the distro is not the decision of the policy
group, it's the decision of the ftpmasters and release manager (who
have the bigger sticks). And therefore, it would seem that trying to
simultaneously use policy as GUIDELINES and as directives of what is
RC is somewhat misguided: a "good" Debian package will fulfill many
more requirements than are considered RC.
Still thinking....
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: