Re: Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> Let's definitely reconsider those 'must' requirements in response to
> this work, but let's not commit ourselves to the idea that it's always a
> bug for the Release Team's conception of an RC bug, and Policy 'must'
> requirements, to disagree.
> The Release Team's conception of RC bugs, and the text of Policy, are
> generated and updated by different processes, for different purposes. I
> think Debian benefits from that diversity of normative processes, and it
> would harm that to try too hard to keep the output of the two processes
> in perfect sync.
Yes, that's put better than I put it. Thank you. I was too focused on
the fact that I suspect we'll find some musts that are too aggressive, but
indeed, allowing these things to differ is part of why I'm proposing
explicit language to allow the Release Team to downgrade requirements to
recommendations.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: