[Sending this to -policy instead of the bug.] On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 06:02:10AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:45:36AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > Speaking of bugs... how do we actually specify that a "should" means e.g. > > minor, and not normal or important? > > I suggest that the old RFC-style must/should/may syntax be dropped > when policy is next rewritten, in favour of a system which describes > accurately: > > a) whether breaking this rule is a bug, or whether this is just > documentation I think we should: 1) Do as you suggest; and/or 2) *Consistently* use must/should/may in the RFC-way, and document what we mean by these words in a preface to the Policy Manual. In other words, I think informative footnotes about what breaks (if anything) when a policy is not followed are useful, and orthogonal to whether we decide RFC-style must/should/mays are useful. > b) what severity such bugs should be I strongly disagree with this. I wrote up an extensive explanation of why recently: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2002/debian-ctte-200211/msg00027.html -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk branden@debian.org | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots."
Attachment:
pgpvF8gxQA5Oa.pgp
Description: PGP signature