On Mon, 04 Apr 2005, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > I filed a bug with severity serious, as this breaks Policy 9.1.1 > (FHS is mandatory). But the maintainer argued that R was packaged > like this from the beginning, and that because it must stay in the > distribution, the bug had to be downgraded to wishlist.
Then you upgraded it to serious again,[1] then Steve downgraded it[2], then Dirk downgraded it,[3] then you upgraded it *again*,[4] then he downgraded it again.[5] If you have a specific problem with the way a maintainer is handling the severity of a bug, the appropriate mechanism is to talk to them and convince them to upgrade the bug *themselves*, not to play BTS tennis with them. If you're sure that the bug should actually be upgraded, then discuss it on -devel, and get rough consensus, which should then convince the maintainer. If not, proceed to the ctte or similar as a last resort. Otherwise, all you're doing is abusing the BTS, no matter how correct your actual appraisal of the severity bug is. Don Armstrong 1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=13 2: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=14 3: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=19 4: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=26 5: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=30 -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
