Re: Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements
Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:10:11AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> +The Release Team may, at their discretion, downgrade a Policy requirement
>> +to a Policy recommendation for a given release of the Debian distribution.
>> +This may be done for only a specific package or for the archive as a
>> +whole. This provision is intended to provide flexibility to balance the
>> +quality standards of the distribution against the release schedule and the
>> +importance of making a stable release.
> I don't think this aligns to the current release team practice, which
> provides a canonical list of points that are considered policy
> requirements:[1]
> | The purpose of this document is to be a correct, complete and canonical
> | list of issues that merit a "serious" bug under the clause "a severe
> | violation of Debian policy".
It doesn't exactly, although it can if you squint, since effectively the
release team is downgrading all other Policy requirements to Policy
recommendations by not listing them there.
Let me copy the release team. How would you all prefer to handle the
relationship between release-criticality and Policy requirements? I don't
think as a project it's ideal to maintain two separate lists of
requirements, but Policy currently doesn't have a nice summary list like
that.
One possible option would be for Policy to take over maintenance of a
summary list of all Policy requirements, and then the release team can
maintain only a list of exceptions for a given Debian release. Do you
think that might be an improvement?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: