Re: Bug#91276: PROPOSED 2001/03/25] update policy to match new serious severity
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:52:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > 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.
> Heh, such a casual attitude is seldom in evidence when you're reading
> *other people's* policy proposals, especially mine...
Oddly, I care more about changes to meaning than just expression.
But no, "It's all a plot against Branden" is a much better explanation.
Let's go with that instead.
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: