Re: Proposed refactoring of the per-release tracker pages
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 23:05:22 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
> I think that, when a vulnerability is undetermined in the sense that it
> is yet unknown whether it is <fixed> or <unfixed> in all the package
> versions currently present in the various releases (stable, testing,
> unstable), then it makes sense to have an urgency (<low>, <medium>,
> <high>, or even <unset>) that suggests how quickly one should strive to
> investigate further.
That is still settable, its just not done in those example cases.
> The per-release tracker pages should have a view that includes these
> kinds of issues too, and a view that hides them, as well.
> I don't mind which is the default, as long as there's a distinct URL
> for each one of them.
In the works ;)
> On the other hand, as soon as a vulnerability is known to be <unfixed>
> in *at least* one package version currently present in a release, the
> urgency (<low>, <medium>, <high>, or <unset>) has the usual meaning
> ("how quickly one should strive to fix the issue?").
> The per-release tracker pages should always show these kinds of issues,
> of course.
As I have been saying, <unset> provides no useful guidance in terms
of how soon the issue should be addressed, so its not really useful
itself.
Mike
Reply to: