Bug#674523: apt-get manpage: please document option --solver
Control: severity -1 minor
2016-08-18 21:01 GMT+01:00 Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org>:
> Control: severity -1 important
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> Patch attached. I didn't update the .po files yet because I supposed there might be a way to automate the c+p of the English parts, which I'll defer to you guys.
Thanks for the patch.
> *I* think it's important.
It doesn't matter that you disagree if the APT team don't think that
it's important (they gave me the permission to downgrade severity).
So please don't change the severity again.
Besides, as a Debian contributor/developer you should know that:
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
important
a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package,
without rendering it completely unusable to everyone.
So it's not "severity important" at all by any strecth of the definition.
> Probably nobody felt it was important, because they didn't know that the option exists, because it's undocumented.
>
> On another point: Debian Developers should not be expected to act as a developer *for every single package*; that would be ridiculous, not scalable, implies no DD should ever file any bug. From the point of view of APT, I am an ordinary user.
The original submitter didn't think that it was important to submit a
patch, people who might have wondered about being nice to have that
feature didn't send duplicate bug reports or "metoos" to this one, and
you didn't think that it was important enough to submit a patch in the
first iteration and after all those years with the bug open.
So, as previously said: just bumping severity doesn't help to get the
bug fixed automatically, and indeed it can have the contrary effect.
> A simple "please submit a patch, I don't have time to work on this myself" would have been sufficient, instead of convolutedly arguing "you shouldn't have touched this bug in the first place".
The fact is that you shouldn't have changed the priority of this bug
in the first place.
The rest of the discussion is you convolutedly defending an action
that you should not have taken.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
Reply to: