Re: Bug reports and severity
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:27:13PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:18:27PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:29:05PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Any thoughts on such a policy?
> >
> > I assume we're talking about FTBFS bugs which theoricaly should be reported
> > as serious (we have a few GNU/kFreeBSD bugs in the style of #307475, too).
> >
> > When Marcus Brinkmann started the GNU/Hurd port, he started using the "serious"
> > severity for FTBFS bugs, but this was disruptive wrt the release process (e.g.
> > britney) so they switched to important.
>
> important is indeed the correct severity here. Bugs that only affect
> arches (and lets assume for the moment that kfreebsd-* and stuff are arches
> until our tools can handle it otherwise) that aren't released and aren't
> planned to be released aren't RC. Once an arch is considered for
> inclusion in release they can be upgraded (which is probably happening
> to the AMD64 specific bugs soon, when it is finally in the archive).
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but from reading the BTS docs [1] and from
comments from other people I got the impression that bug severities and RC-ness
are orthogonal, and this is why {sarge,etch}-ignore tags were created.
So to address my question more directly: is it acceptable from a release
managing perspective to use serious severity for an FTBFS with the proper tag
to indicate it's not RC?
[1] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: