Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
Scott Kitterman <email@example.com> writes:
> This option makes multiple references to RC and non-RC bugs based on
> actions of the policy editors.
> It's my understanding that determining if a bug is RC or not is a
> Release Team function, not the policy editors.
> Would it be better to use something like 'severe policy violation' (and
> it's opposite) than Release Critical?
No objections here but I think it's a minor issue. These are generally
kept in sync except that the release team is free to declare violations of
a Policy must to not be release-critical in the service of getting a
release out and scoping the amount of work we're committing to do. (The
contrary should *not* be true and only is due to lack of resources;
anything that the release team considers release-critical should be a must
in Policy, and bug reports are welcome in any place this is not in sync.)
If a Policy must is declared not release critical for release after
release, I'd like to synchronize and downgrade it to a should. The goal
is for both policies to say the same thing except for temporary
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>