Re: Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements
Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> writes:
> On 21-11-2019 13:59, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> [Disclaimer: the words below are as a member of the release team, but
>> not necessarily those of the team. We haven't discussed this yet.]
> We have had a discussion, and there were no objections against my vision
> below.
>> I can envision that if Policy carries such a summary list, our policy
>> would mention the version of Policy it was based on, to make sure that
>> Policy doesn't suddenly change what we as the RT agreed on.
> So, yes, we would welcome the Policy to maintain a summary list that we
> could reference. We already acknowledge that there will be items in the
> Policy text that we balance differently for RC-ness, so there will be
> exceptions maintained by us.
Thanks, Paul! This is now on me to compose this list, and I'll let you
know when that's done. Once that's complete, we can do a reconciliation.
I'm inclined to downgrade Policy musts that the release team does not
consider likely to be release-critical in the future, for instance.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: