Re: Severity of "should this package be orphaned/removed" bugs
(Dropping Cc on #453487 and Moritz since the reason for the upgrade of
this bug was clarified already)
On 27/03/08 at 19:22 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > We really need to clarify the severities for the "Should this
>
> > package be orphaned/removed" bugs.
> > I would agree to go with:
> > - serious for "proposed removal" bugs
> > - important for "proposed orphan" bugs. After all, we release with a lot
> > of orphaned packages, and unmaintained packages aren't really
> > different.
> > However, I fear that, since the "proposed orphan" bugs won't be RC, some
> > maintainers might ignore them more easily. Also, it prevents them from
> > being listed in ddpo-by-mail, for example.
>
> Maintainers ignoring bugs is kind of the problem, so is not really an
> argument...
Sure, but it's slightly harder to miss RC bugs than other bugs.
> ddpo-by-mail could probably easily be updated to include bugs with a
> particular subject pattern? So also not a real argument AFAICS...
Except that code has to be written to handle that special case.
> > Luk, what are the reasons why you think that severity: important is more
> > suitable than severity: serious? If it's only because it blocks testing
> > transitions, we could mark the bugs as found in the testing version
> > where needed, so testing transitions can still happen.
>
> Testing migration is certainly an issue.
So we could mark the bugs as found in the testing versions, to avoid
migration problems. It's not a real argument either.
> > If that's because it "artificially" makes the RC bug count higher, we
> > could tag the bugs lenny-ignore where applicable (that is, where the
> > security team doesn't think that it's a too big problem to release that
> > package without maintainer).
>
> Tagging bugs lenny-ignore is only up to the Release Managers and is only
> meant for bugs that will be RC for the next release...
>
> > What do you think?
>
> I don't see any reason to have PROP_O bugs be RC severity as orphaned
> packages are in most cases not an RC problem and the cases where they
> are a problem there should already be open RC bugs against the package...
OK, I will send a mail to -devel@ to mention that change of policy.
> PROP_RM bugs could be RC severity, but if so I would remove the
> mentioning of orphaning in the template so it's clear for everyone that
> it should not be used lightly and strong arguments are needed for
> orphaning instead of removal...
I would personally prefer to keep the mentioning of orphaning in the
template, because it allows for a "way out" of the problem that should
be mentioned. A maintainer might agree to orphan a package, but disagree
to take the decision to remove it.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: