On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:40:07 +0100, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Ben Finney wrote: >> The goal as I understood the OP was to discourage letting bugs (of >> 'normal' severity or above) sit unacknowledged while the package >> moves forward with further uploads. There was nothing in the >> proposal about addressing the speed of fixes. > > Allow me to quote from the OP: > > What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to > migrate from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports > with severity >= normal? > > Thus, if you have a package with any unanswered important or normal > bugs, it will not progress. In order to assure propogation, you must > respond rapidly to any bug that is filed with these severities, even > though this has nothing to do with fixing the bug. This is a technical > impedance to a maintainer getting useful work done, like fixing RC > bugs in testing, and as such is not something that I can condone.
I believe that this is a false economy: I think that the goodwill generated by acknowledging bugs in a respectful manner, even with no information beyond "I saw it", will in turn generate help/work that exceeds the value of the work expended by making the acknowledgements. (Note that I have no position on requiring acks by technical means.) Reid -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
