Re: Severity of "should this package be orphaned/removed" bugs
On 29/03/08 at 01:59 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Either it should have been PROP_O or strong arguments should be given
> IMHO like I said above... Just telling that if the maintainer doesn't
> agree they can orphan without mentioning any arguments not to remove is
> not the way to go for PROP_RM IMHO...
I prefer to be less confronting, and keep the option open for the
maintainer to orphan the package instead of removing it. After all, once
it's orphaned, it's easy to remove it. And if the maintainer doesn't
justify its choice, it's easy to ask. In my experience, maintainers have
been mostly responsive about such queries.
Also, the person filing the bug report might not know the package
very well, and can make mistakes. I believe that it's important to stay
on the safe side by not being too aggressive, if possible.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: