Re: Severity of "should this package be orphaned/removed" bugs
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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.
That's perfectly ok, though then I don't see any reason to have the bug
report be RC severity by default?
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: