On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]: > >> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism for > >> making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
> > Etch-ignore tags are usually used for issues where we expect them to > > be RC after etch releases. If we think an issue won't be RC for > > etch+1 etc, then adjusting the severity is correct. > I would assume violations of policy MUST directives are either > bugs in policy, which should be fixed, or an issue in the package > that needs to be fixed after etch releases. > If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt > directives that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug > opened on policy with severity important for every one of them. Why? If these issues are downgraded to "should"s in policy, doesn't that again introduce ambiguity about whether a violation of that particular "should" is a bug, unnecessarily weakening the overall quality of the distro? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
