[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.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 (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: